Jump to content

Talk:Ha-Joon Chang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Easterly exchange

[edit]

It is true the Easterly was allowed a longer reply; just look at the difference in the number of words.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the question here is not whether Easterly wrote a longer piece than Chang as measured by word count. The issue is whether one of the two writers was limited by the editors of the New York Review to a certain number of words, while the other was "allowed" more. I have been reading the New York Review for decades. Take a look at their letters section some time. Some authors reply to their critics in a couple of paragraphs, others go on for pages. I know of no reason to believe that these differences are imposed arbitrarily by the editors. Absent such evidence, the assumption is that Easterly chose to write at (very slightly) longer length than Chang. Nandt1 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thing to fail to note in the first place Easterly's first article was many times longer than any book review and that Chang was given only 400 words to reply. You seem to be defending Easterly on Chang's pageOther dictionaries are better (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AAA. If, again, you would actually like to take a look at a random copy of the New York Review, you will see that the review essays they publish are typically longer than a standard review in an academic journal. Often an essay may cover several different books at once, often the author may offer his or her views on issues that go well beyond a review of any specific books. So, that is the house style of the New York Review, and does not imply either that Easterly was privileged or Chang penalized.
BBB. My concern with this edit is not to "defend Easterly" but to try to make this Wikipedia article as accurate as possible. In the absence of any evidence that "Chang was given only 400 words" -- I reiterate -- our assumption needs to be that he just chose to write a letter that was a tad shorter than Easterly's response. Of course, if you do have evidence -- a citation of a credible source -- that the editors imposed a word limit on Chang and that this limit discriminated against him and in favor of Easterly, now would be the time to produce such evidence. If you do not have evidence to that effect, I cannot see what will be the point of continuing to debate this matter. Nandt1 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? The length of replies is a red herring. The original author has the advantage of a providing a reply to the response, so they get the last word. That's what matters. PS "counter-reply" is an odd word, and a properly formatted reference would be nice. Rd232 talk 00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still are defending him--you placed a review critical of Chang's book wthout balancing it with other positive reviews--which the books laregely received. And no, there's no saying either thant the "original author" should be allowed a long reply---book reviews are not eight pages long, especially those that mis-read people's work.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]




u cant win nobel on economy. bank of norway gives it, not nobel foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.86.252 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs improvement and not by just anyone

[edit]

To me , this article is critical of Chang and missing out many of his important contributions. Especially the section on his Bad Samaritarians book, it is worded as if the book was not famous and well-received at all.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rd232 talk 23:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

300 most influential British intellectuals

[edit]

I personally feel that is a worthy source enough to be listed here. As much as it is a "one-person view" is is no more biased that the earlier statements that Chang influenced a South American politician. In any case, I'll post the link here:[1] Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in removing it: "it's not objective ranking by an institution, it's one man's opinion (and the corrections at the bottom of the list don't enhance the credibility of that opinion)", It's the opinion of John Naughton. There is no comparison with the fact of influence on Correa. Rd232 talk 11:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I feel it is.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is what? Rd232 talk 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it should be there.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well logically that means it should be in all the 300 biographies in Naughton's list. That clearly gives more significance to this 1 person's unsupported opinion than it warrants. (If you still disagree, try WP:3O.) Rd232 talk 22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still do.But leaving it cause Wikipedia has its limits.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College

[edit]

Is he a member of any particular college of the University? Marnanel (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion used in last sentence on writing

[edit]

While I am a total newbe, the last sentence in the writing section, "Amongst many issues, he controversially claims that "the washing machine has changed society more than the Internet" is not attributed and seems to be just opinion. The footnote link appears to be Chang's reasoning and doesn't refer to any any controversy.

Does anyone have a reference or a better description of his '23 Things' book?

Please correct me if this is the improper use of the talk page.

Joe Stockton GA US (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ha-Joon Chang/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I agree that there was some poorly sourced material, and I have been trying to add some references over the last few days. I think it should be OK now, but more information is needed for the educational section.

Last edited at 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 16:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ha-Joon Chang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ha-Joon_Chang&oldid=1252189030"