Talk:Michael Lewis/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lewis (author) → Michael Lewis – Relisted -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic. Page views: Author: 23,881, Wide receiver: 1141, Safety: 881, Musician: 529, Racer: 134, Clergyman: 104. Marcus Qwertyus 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Just not well-known enough to be a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. Page views appear pretty conclusive that the author is the primary topic and I can see no reason why this shouldn't be the case. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Support, per the evidence above. The author is much more likely, and more likely than all others combined, to be the Michael Lewis a reader expects when searching by that name. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michael Lewis (writer)

Michael Lewis the author wrote an article in March 2011 Vanity Fair regarding the collapse of the Irish economy. Putting aside what I see as obvious and unequivocal bigotry, there is one portion of the article that involves a blatant factual error that Lewis uses as a basis for a preposterous and insulting claim. I linked to the sources proving Lewis made the false claim and that the claim was false. The edit is repeatedly wiped out. It is significant and newsworthy because this is supposedly a nonfiction writer that plays fast and loose with the facts, in this specific case to the detriment of an entire ethnic group. Suggestions? I will wait to hear and then offer a redacted, cited version of what I've already submitted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcds (talk • contribs) 2011-08-08T15:39:18

For reference. This is a small content skirmish over a section added by Maddmcds (talk · contribs) on 8/5, over a series of edits, the product of which is visible with this diff [1]. It was reverted the following day by 46.33.11.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the edit summary "removed slanderous segment on Irish parliament article" [2]. Matt then reverted without an edit summary [3], only to be reverted again, this time by 75.103.254.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [4]. causa sui (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment The section you added is clearly incompatible with the Wikipedia core content policies, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research, and so the anonymous users who reverted you were in the right to do so. You may want to review those policies for a more general understanding of what was wrong with your prose. Further, while it may be possible that the material you are adding could be reworked to be more encyclopedic, it is with few exceptions inappropriate to edit Wikipedia with the aim of advancing a particular point of view. causa sui (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources needed - Mattmcds: can you provide the sources you have that describe the bigotry and errors of the author? If there are no WP:Reliable sources, then it is simply people's opinions, and the WP:Original research policy prohibits it from being in the article. --Noleander (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Pure OR - That paragraph is pure original research and NPOV. If you find someone to publish that claim somewhere, and tone down the rhetoric, perhaps it warrants a sentence, but not the rambling paragraph it is. This RfC needs to be closed, there's nothing of substance here. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing War?

A prime criticism of Lewis' writing seems to be the claim that he is loose with facts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-tavakoli/michael-lewis-junior-sale_b_498781.html. In the March 2011 Vanity Fair, Lewis, writing on Ireland's financial collapse, claims that "everything" in the Irish Parliament is spoken in English and then repeated in Gaelic, the native tongue of Ireland. http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/03/michael-lewis-ireland-201103. In reality, very rarely in Irish Parliament are statements offered in English and then repeated in Gaelic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEWLpD1H0vQ. Lewis used the claim that "everything" spoken in the Irish Parliament is spoken in English and repeated in Gaelic as a basis for an assertion that the Irish "insist(ence) on their irishness" and that such "insistence" is merely a "conceit" of the people. http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/03/michael-lewis-ireland-201103. Lewis claims that part of the evidence that this "insistence" is merely a "conceit" is the fact of Ireland's history of emigration, http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/03/michael-lewis-ireland-201103, even though it is well documented that Irish emigration has been driven by a great famine, poverty and persecution, and not by the emigrants' distaste for their homeland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_diaspora. Later in 2011, Lewis was sued for defamation for his portrayal of a chinese-american in his book The Big Short. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/28/books-defamation-lewis-idUSN2828548720110228

This paragraph seems to be popping in and out of Michael Lewis' Wiki page. I decided to throw it up on the discussion page, rather than attempting to remove it, etc. There are so many things wrong with this paragraph, that it definitely should not be included, or needs to be heavily revised before being included. Anyone else want to weigh in? Lovesbooks25 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Lewis was wrong on the facts; and his remarks certainly seem to this son of the Irish Diaspora to reek of bigotry. The language is intemperate, and violates NPOV; and the editor pushing it the most heavily has just dumped a huge steaming hump of ad hominem ill-will on Lovesbooks' talk page; but the facts are still correct about Lewis' bad factchecking (which should not have gotten past Vanity Fair's fact-checkers, if they still have any in their modern degraded incarnation). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We're still having problems with an editor repeatedly attempting to insert this material. Several points:

(1) The fact that someone filed a defamation suit against Lewis is non-notable in and of itself. For all we know the case was dismissed or the person lost on the merits. If the person ended up winning the defamation suit, that might be notable.

(2) Setting aside for the moment the question of whether or not Lewis actually made factual mistakes about Ireland, the above material has the major problem (for Wikipedia) of being original research. None of the citations is a reliable source independently stating that Lewis has made factual errors. The Huffington Post link is nothing but a personal blog post, like so much of the content on HuffPo. The rest of the links do not support the charges being made against Lewis except perhaps by implication in conjunction with other information -- which means it is original research. If any such material is to be included, it needs to cite a reliable source that directly and explicitly supports what is being stated on Lewis's WP bio.

(3) Even if some of these assertions were true and could be supported with reliable sources, I'm not so sure they'd be worth including anyway. Lewis is loose with facts because of one mistake about the languages used in the Irish parliament? With all respect to the Irish, this simply wouldn't deserve a big section in a biographical article. And all of the business about "Irishness" is closer to opinion than fact, even if some opinions may be more correct than others. Another reason not to include it.

Terence7 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Author's articles

Recently a partial list of Lewis's articles was removed in this edit:

[5] "removed article subsection as unnecessary for a journalist (too many articles and how do we pick 'em?) - see discussion on WP:BPLN"

..specifically WP:BPLN - Michael Lewis (which will be archived eventually and thus no longer at this link, ftr). I agree with much of what was said there and I understand that the list was incomplete and seemingly random by selection. However, I hope someone more familiar (than me) with his various works can expand the Writing section with links to more articles as examples of his journalism: (though of course not in the list format, which inevitably invites others to haphazardly add to it)

"It's the Economy, Dummkopf!". Vanity Fair. 2011-08-10. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
"A Good Joke Spoiled". The New Republic. 2011-06-23. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
"The Ballad of Big Mike". New York Times Magazine. 2006-09-024. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |title= (help)
"Man Up! Hedge-Fund Man's Advice for Wall Street". Bloomberg. 2009-02-13. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
"Dad Again ". Slate. 2008-01-17. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help).
"The End of Wall Street's Boom". Condé Nast Portfolio. 2008-11-11. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)

These are from the removed list, one article from each major publication. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.187.11 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Because a journalist writes so many articles, it presents an obvious problem to list all of them in his Wikipedia article. To select a sample of his article writings invites the issue I referred to in my edit summary - how do we decide which ones to insert in the article? Although I understand that picking an article from each major publication is not a completely arbitrary method, it's not great in my view for two reasons. First, even within each publication, we are making a selection - what are the criteria for that selection? Second, it doesn't necessarily follow that such a method makes encyclopedic sense.

I propose that we list only those articles that receive coverage from other secondary sources as noteworthy. For example, if an article received an award of some kind, or if an article was criticized, or if an article was praised. I have no idea if any of Lewis's articles would satisfy this requirement, but it has appeal because we apply it to most material we consider for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. If someone has another idea, I'm open to it, but I'm not crazy about the one-per-pub method.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

NYT book review of 2011 Boomerang and related 2010 The Big Short.

Touring the Ruins of the Old Economy by Michiko Kakutani, published: September 26, 2011 in The New York Times. C1/C4 in print. 99.119.128.249 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Where are you suggesting it go? 99.119.128.87 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Michiko Kakutani has a wp article. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource

It’s Good to Be Michael Lewis; He could have made a fortune in business. Instead, he made a fortune writing about it. Plus—a fortune for everyone he writes about By Jessica Pressler Published Oct 2, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Already in article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Review of Books resource

How We Were All Misled December 8, 2011 The New York Review of Books John Lanchester of Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World by Michael Lewis 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Michael Lewis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Spouse?

The "Spouse" section of his infobox makes it looks like he has three wives, yet he divorced his second one in 1995. Divorce dates should be added to the infobox. 2601:601:1001:E120:A1B5:51FB:E3EB:A009 (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Do you have a source for the divorce years? – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

New book about COVID-19

Didn't he just write a new book about COVID-19 in 2021? Is anyone keeping this article up to date? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Details of Lewis's daughter's death

The article has a sentence detailing the way Lewis's non-notable daughter, who is not the subject of the article, died. I revised it to include that his daughter had died, while leaving out the details, which are not germane to Michael Lewis himself.

Edwardx reverted, reinserting the details of her death, with the edit summary "Looks ok to me".

What's the consensus? I'm fine with indicating Lewis has a daughter who died, but the circumstances of her death have nothing to do with the subject of the article, and it verges on tabloid for Wikipedia to be reporting it. TJRC (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots of people die in car crashes, so it is hardly salacious. And it is relaibly sourced. Really don't see a problem here. Edwardx (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not about Michael Lewis. TJRC (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible sources

Why is there no mention of the following works:

“Liar’s Poker” 1989 “The Money Culture” 1991 “Trail Fever” 1997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C700:7420:51E3:6C7B:4667:D716 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)