Talk:Gene Callahan (economist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The bit about "Mises Institute adjunct scholar" is on the website. His book is verifiable on Amazon, etc. He has been studying at the LSE recently, as can be checked here[1]. The periodicals all seem right, although I didn't verify each (I'm willing to bet Callahan has a c.v. somewhere that would do this nicely). Dick Clark 21:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the above, I am going to remove the {{not-verified}} tag from the article. Dick Clark 21:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

PROD tag[edit]

After adding a few citations and cleaning up a bit, I am removing the PROD tag from the article. Please specify here any shortcomings that are still apparent. Cheers, DickClarkMises 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I need more cowbell...I mean, notability.[edit]

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but this article sounds a little like a book jacket. I mean, it seems like anyone who has a Masters, is part of a philosopher's association, an economic institute, wrote two books, and writes for various journals can have a wikipedia page.

I'm not against this biography wikipage, but why should this person, and not every person with the abovementioned resume, get a page? Let's fill in the gaps and make this page great. It's not a great world where you have to win a nobel prize to get noticed, but until they remove the 'notability' requirement for biographies, we've got to go by the rule. Rhetth (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he did write and publish two books. I think that is Callahan's main claim to fame. In addition, he is or was a popular commentator in a certain subculture of the internet commentariat. Those two factors combined, and especially the former, I think make him clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah ha. Well, I saw in the article how he wrote some books, although all we have about them are quotes from book reviews. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can see these books as being notable, but that alone puts it on borderline notability. As far as his internet commentary, I didn't read anything about that in the article. Maybe someone could add some information and history about his activity on the internet. Thanks for the info. Rhetth (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this be an article about the book?[edit]

The only independent source in this article is a review of his book Economics for Real People. (There is a second review cited in the article, but it is from a magazine published by the same institute that published the book, so it is not independent.) I was able to find at least one other independent review of the same book. It seems like the the book is more notable than the author. I wonder if this article should be moved to Economics for Real People and revised to focus on the more notable topic. Thoughts? --RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)