This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User 66.9.150.10 ( talk · contribs) recently added the following regarding Ms Shlaes's newly released book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.
Unfortunately, you need a subscription to Booklist's to read its reviews, and I'm not sure that linking to the Amazon page is the proper way to cite that review. Moreover, that reads too much like advertising to me.
BTW, I have seen a couple of very positive reviews of this book in my regular reading. Cheers, CWC 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
George Will reviewed the book in this column. CWC 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is the heading "The Forgotten Man controversy?" What's the "controversy?" That some people don't agree with the book? Is this the first book in the history of the English speaking world that someone didn't agree with? That's every book, isn't it? For every book, there is someone who doesn't agree. So should every book title get the word "controversy" after it? There's really nothing too controversial about the book anyway, it just contradicts the "received wisdom" about the history of the Great Depression. SecretaryNotSure ( talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. The facts are there, they are just interpeted differently. That is not the same thing as misrepresentation - tho it might suit some who don't like the author to confuse the two, I agree. 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 20:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed line beginning "She is distincly [sic] neoconservative....." Firstly, Ms. Shlaes' support for free markets is conspicuously un-Neoconservative. Neoconservatism means something (or at least it used to) other than merely “ultra right-wing.” Secondly, the statement that Ms. Shlaes has a “profound sense of self promotion” is merely ad hominem. If there is evidence that she is a grand self-promoter please cite it. Thirdly, the implication that Ms. Shlaes is somehow involved in her mention in the Bloomberg entry is simply unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninoscalia1986 ( talk • contribs) 22:05:11, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Neoconservative or neoliberal or Laissez-faire? Since she is mostly an economics writer and not a political writer, laissez-faire is more correct. Neoconservative implies loss of personal freedom in additon to loss of economic freedom. See Nolan chart. 71.131.3.27 ( talk) 06:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't have her year of birth. Intelius gives her age as 46, so I put in that she was born ca. 1961. Jmkleeberg 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Ms Shlaes is a controversial figure, sometimes accused of subverting facts in order to to promote neo-conservative views."
Well, says who? Nothing cited, and rather out of step. Should it be removed from the article? PJayC 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about the two Katrina articles should go. First, because it's not a fair characterization of the main point of the first column, which was that 9/11 made Bush more willing to put Federal resources into Katrina. Second, and more important, because to single out these columns gives them too much weight in the article. It's not as if Ms. Shlaes is primarily known for writing about Katrina. -- 66.28.243.126 ( talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It's fair to say that the Katrina articles should not have taken so much space, but given the place made to other articles she wrote, as well as the possibly controversial role they have had her career, a mention of them would make sense. I'm adding them in a shorter way, please feel free to improve. Farialima ( talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This edit substituted a Wikipedia editor's judgment about the controversy for that of what a secondary source thought notable about the controversy. Because of the WP:NOR rules, we prefer secondary sources to Wikipedia editors' interpretation of primary sources. Because of WP:WEIGHT it is also inappropriate to include lengthy ad hominem sections of Krugman's angry screed, unless we're also going to include equally lengthy encomiums from George Will and others. THF ( talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph:
is original research and synthesis. If someone explicitly criticized Shlaes for not accurately anticipating the course of the economy over the next nine months, there might be some relevance to the article, and one can cite that secondary source, but she simply wrote an op-ed that made an accurate observation about the state of the economy in June. THF ( talk) 14:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph at issue is neither properly cited nor worded for this article in my opinion. Collect ( talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
We should add a {{ main}} template to the Forgotten Man controversy section. THF ( talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that the only balancing material bout the Forgotten Man was deleted. "The International Herald Tribune review by David Leonhardt includes "In a unanimous ruling the court found the (chicken pricing) code to be an unconstitutional expansion of federal authority. On the day of the ruling, Justice Louis Brandeis took aside one of Roosevelt's aides and told him, "This is the end of this business of centralization." The National Recovery Administration, the agency that had gone after the Schechters, soon dropped hundreds of similar cases and closed its doors." Leonhardt continues "other attempts to fine-tune the economy truly did fail." [1]" Fully referenced material which balances a POV setction ought to be replaced in the article. Collect ( talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
How about deleting, from the current version, quotes that are meant to show Shlaes as a prescient observer (Fannie and Freddie) or to showcase her views (WSJ op-ed), and also leave out the instances where she's been glaringly wrong (Katrina, recession). The Forgotten Man section could give a reasonable idea of her views and the critical reaction. I'm not thrilled with this solution, but it's hard to see a better one emerging. JQ ( talk) 05:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What's not mentioned is FDR devalued the dollar. $20 per ounce of gold to $35 per ounce of gold. It's easy to have 9 to 11 percent growth of GNP, high unemployment, and lots of government works projects when the government can create all the money in wants.
Also, the book is more about the effects of government policy on people and business at a personal level, and not a tome on economic theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.7.169 ( talk) 06:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
71.12.223.111 is sadly simply correct, Peter Temin showed this in the 70s, all the wishful pc revisionism can' t change that. It is also "strange" that the newnewdealers completly ignore the stalinist or (even worse?) Ialian-fascist leanings of many of the chief administrators of the New Deal. Hitler's economic success with new deal type policies might also give pause for thought?-- Radh ( talk) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLP states "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Although there are some grey areas here, it seems pretty clear that a blog published by a magazine (such as Atlantic or The Economist) is a source similar to an opinion column in the same magazine. Similarly, if a political organization criticises the subject of a BLP, the notability of the criticism doesn't depend on the format. If the facts are clear (as in the Gramm and Katrina cases) and the only question is whether anyone notable has mentioned them, that should be decisive. JQ ( talk) 11:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The controversies section should be expanded. Much of Amity Shlaes scholarly work has been repeatedly questioned for it's accuracy.
Her work has been questioned as: selectively reporting facts, ignoring inconvenient facts, and creating a revisionist mythology of verifiable history.
"Revisionists' blind view of New Deal." By Matthew Dallek http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6CF51F59-18FE-70B2-A858CD862CDC69EA
The key graph by historian Dallek's criticism of Shlaes writing is:
Amity Shlaes historical scholarship and accounting methodology has been questioned by both credible historians as well as economics professors. There's a growing body of evidence that Amity Shlaes is a fiction writer pretending to write non-fiction to push a political agenda.
Below it's asked if George Will's encomium to Amity Shlaes should be included. The same George Will who has decided to question the science behind global climate change? George "doubts global science" Will is not in the same league as Paul "noble prize" Krugman. That creates a false equivalency that's a discredit to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.162.63 ( talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither Krugman nor Wills are scientists. And neither has won a Nobel (not noble) Prize. And none of this has anything to do with whether one journalist's praise of another should be included in a Wikipedia article. 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 05:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The numbers cited in this section are misleading: the slump was so great, production 60 p.c. of early 20s figures!, that the 1933 recovery at first glance of course looks enormous, but was not, also new recession in 37. The recession ended with WW2 only (and then left the much loved insustrial-military complex in its wake, compare US military spending pre and post WW2 and you will be shocked).-- Radh ( talk) 13:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
One problem is with the word ordering and the tone of this section (which is meant for criticism). For instance, the positive reviews "raved", while the negative ones "accused." I suggest choosing less emotionally loaded terms and using the same subject-verb-object structure for all sentences. Another example is that the qualifications of "adjunct professor, and historian on liberal history, Matthew Dallek" stands out, while the (unabashedly) conservative nature of the National Review is glossed over. We should be consistent—I suggest removing the entire phrase "adjunct professor, and historian on liberal history" and allowing the citation or a wikipedia page link on the person allow the user to adopt an informed opinion. The sentence and paragraph structure is quite confusing as a whole, I wish it were more logically ordered—move the positive reviews to its own paragraph, and organize the criticisms by type and response, keep response length from being many times longer than the criticism (isn’t that what citation is for?). -- tychay —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
Shlaes's book is widely praised (great reviews in the WSJ, NY Review of Books, Foreign Affairs, etc.), but somehow only the criticism from liberals concerned about the political ramifications of her work is in the article--and not even Shlaes's response rebutting the false claims of inaccuracy. THF ( talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Here, exemplified, is hypocrisy. You say on one hand that you have not and will not read the book, due most likely due to your own desire to believe something, and then go on to say "folks who hate the New Deal before they even pick up the book obviously love it," referring to the book. This is what the left does. They decide who is the authority and if they disagree with you then they're suddenly no longer an authority. There are literally hundreds of economists who laud this book, but because you say ipse dixit that you "can't imagine historians of the New Deal giving it status among the canonical scholarly works about that era." Newsflash. Shaels IS a historian of the New Deal.
The piece de resistance is of course, after you recognize how ridiculous The Forgotten Man section of the article is, you go ahead and say, "well, I'm not gonna change it anyway." What a hypocrite. -heyzeusful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyzeusful ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Economist Brad DeLong pointed out that "Amity Shlaes was fired from the Financial Times for lying about the Bush administration's preparedness to deal with Hurricane Katrina." http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/jonathan-chait-on-new-deal-denialism.html
Since part of the article about Shlaes reads like a curriculum vitae, with prominent mention of her work at the Financial Times, her termination at the Financial Times for shoddy journalism should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.162.63 ( talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A search on "Amity Shlaes" reveals the two self contradictory posts, as well as letters to the editor complaining about her articles, and then nothing from FT, so the statement by Crooked Timber, "A search by date suggests that Shlaes produced one more column (which tried to blame the Katrina shambles on the Evils of Federalism, directly contradicting what she had said the previous week), a piece for the wealth section, and a book review over the next couple of weeks, and was then gone forever" is factually correct. Since those rather egregious displays of hackery, she has not graced the pages of FT.
As to listing Delong and Yglesias as, "Just bloggers," while it might be true for the former, it is not true for the latter. Mr. Delong, notwithstanding his government experience, is just a professor blogging. Matthew Yglesias, on the other hand, has been employed as a writer by a number of journals, and as such, this is a statement by someone in the field.
So we KNOW that she published these articles, and that she was excoriated in the letters page, and that she was never published by FT again, and we KNOW that a professional in the punditry industry has explicitly stated that he was fired.
I would also note that repeating Mr. Yglesias's statement is NOT libelous, because Ms. Shlaes is a public figure, and by publishing an explicit statement of someone in the business, you are not exhibiting either "malice" or a "reckless disregard for the truth."
Is the statement that, with in the space of N weeks, Amity Shlaes published two contradictory articles on the Bush Administration's handling of Katrina (true from the search of the archives), and thereafter, her relationship with the FT ended (also true from the archives), and a number of people (links to CT, Yglesias, Delong) have suggested that she was terminated.[User:msaroff|msaroff]] ( talk) 4:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I don't get this one: I cleaned up the links (some were direct links, and some were direct references, and noted that her last articles at FT were published in September, 2005. That all stayed, but the the link which shows her articles on FT was removed. There is no statement of firing. There is no reference to the controversy as to her 2nd and 3rd to last articles at FT, nor any to the circumstances under which she left, just an end date. The end date remains, but the link which provides a citation for the end date is removed? Please explain how the addition of, "until September, 2005," to describe her the dates of her tenure at FT is acceptable, but the link which shows that her last article was published on September 23, 2005 is somehow not acceptable? Mongo confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaroff ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in this for other articles as well. Are you allowed to provide links to columns and pieces written by the subject of an article, or not? I had thought you were; look at Wikipedia's Westbrook Pegler article. It has links to several articles written by Pegler that add greatly to understanding the subject. Why can there not be links to pieces by Amity Shlaes in the Amity Shlaes article? 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 05:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how, but would it be possible to convey in some way that of the numerous honors and awards mentioned in this entry, virtually all were given by conservative organizations? Not to mention this seems misleading. 75.35.209.135 ( talk) 08:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Nancy R.
There may be something of merit here, but as written, I can't figure out what the point is (vis a vis Shlaes) and therefore can't fix it. Therefore deleting, but paragraph is here in its entirety if someone wants to fix it and put it back.
Citation #20 "Wasting Away in Hooverville" by Jonathan Chait from a March 18, 2009 edition of The New Republic has a link to just The New Republic's website and not the article itself. I would highly recommend a link directly to article as the link is kind of meaningless otherwise. Here is a direct link:
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/wasting-away-hooverville
I would make the change myself, but as thesis is a controversial article and such any change I make would, understandably, probably be reverted to assure I hadn't done something nefarious. Thus could someone with some history on editing this article make this tiny correction? I am aware there is much controversy, but I think whatever side you may take on this article, a correct link for a citation that is already included should be something everyone can agree upon. 131.215.32.217 ( talk) 17:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Nat
I'm confused. Amity Shlaes only has a B.A. in English, yet she has lectured a graduate-level course at NYU? Don't most universities require graduate degrees, and preferably Ph.D.s, in order to teach? Is some of her education missing from this article? -- JHP ( talk) 05:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This article's previous account of Roth's review quoted a partial sentence that expounded Schlaes's position -- crucially omitting the opening words "She points out" -- as if it constituted an outright endorsement of Shlaes's overall argument. Actually, if you read the piece as a whole, the author tried to present both Shlaes's and Krugman's positions; the piece ends remarkably agnostically. I have tried to give a balanced account of Roth's piece. Nandt1 ( talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
==Some discussion of her family background from a Booknotes with Brian Lamb interview, if anyone cares to make this article more robust. 74.193.221.158 ( talk) 07:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Only a BA from Yale is listed, but later it says she is an Assoc. Prof. of Economics somewhere. Is there a degree missing? or if not, how do you get to teach economics without a degree in the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The pro-Shlaes content is given too much weight in this article. Generally, praise for the subject of an article should not be quoted (and often not even mentioned) unless it adds something substantive to the article. Detailed listings of lectures, articles, and other minor publications supported only by primary sources is inappropriate as well - we aren't a CV database like LinkedIn. All in all substantial trimming is needed. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In the opening sentence, Shlaes' description as a "libertarian" was reverted and switched to "classical liberal" without explanation. "Libertarian" was supported by this reliable source:
"Classical liberal" is being supported by these sources:
Per our policy on verifiability, all disputed content must be supported by reliable sources. If there is a conflict among reliable sources then the conflict must be described neutrally. In this case we have no conflict: the reliable source says Shales is libertarian. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The Liberty21 source was replaced with this one:
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The article has been reverted to say in the lead section that Shlaes authored four New York Times bestsellers, but this isn't supported by reliable sources for all four of Shlaes' books. There also appears to be an undue emphasis on the bestselling status of the books throughout the article. Per our policy on verifiability, all content should be verifiable with reliable sources, and should be presented neutrally. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sramos92, the fact that Shlaes is serving as a resident scholar at King's College doesn't appear to be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. I think we need an independent secondary source, rather than a primary source, before we include this detail. Your thoughts please. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User 66.9.150.10 ( talk · contribs) recently added the following regarding Ms Shlaes's newly released book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.
Unfortunately, you need a subscription to Booklist's to read its reviews, and I'm not sure that linking to the Amazon page is the proper way to cite that review. Moreover, that reads too much like advertising to me.
BTW, I have seen a couple of very positive reviews of this book in my regular reading. Cheers, CWC 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
George Will reviewed the book in this column. CWC 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is the heading "The Forgotten Man controversy?" What's the "controversy?" That some people don't agree with the book? Is this the first book in the history of the English speaking world that someone didn't agree with? That's every book, isn't it? For every book, there is someone who doesn't agree. So should every book title get the word "controversy" after it? There's really nothing too controversial about the book anyway, it just contradicts the "received wisdom" about the history of the Great Depression. SecretaryNotSure ( talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. The facts are there, they are just interpeted differently. That is not the same thing as misrepresentation - tho it might suit some who don't like the author to confuse the two, I agree. 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 20:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed line beginning "She is distincly [sic] neoconservative....." Firstly, Ms. Shlaes' support for free markets is conspicuously un-Neoconservative. Neoconservatism means something (or at least it used to) other than merely “ultra right-wing.” Secondly, the statement that Ms. Shlaes has a “profound sense of self promotion” is merely ad hominem. If there is evidence that she is a grand self-promoter please cite it. Thirdly, the implication that Ms. Shlaes is somehow involved in her mention in the Bloomberg entry is simply unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninoscalia1986 ( talk • contribs) 22:05:11, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Neoconservative or neoliberal or Laissez-faire? Since she is mostly an economics writer and not a political writer, laissez-faire is more correct. Neoconservative implies loss of personal freedom in additon to loss of economic freedom. See Nolan chart. 71.131.3.27 ( talk) 06:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't have her year of birth. Intelius gives her age as 46, so I put in that she was born ca. 1961. Jmkleeberg 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"Ms Shlaes is a controversial figure, sometimes accused of subverting facts in order to to promote neo-conservative views."
Well, says who? Nothing cited, and rather out of step. Should it be removed from the article? PJayC 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about the two Katrina articles should go. First, because it's not a fair characterization of the main point of the first column, which was that 9/11 made Bush more willing to put Federal resources into Katrina. Second, and more important, because to single out these columns gives them too much weight in the article. It's not as if Ms. Shlaes is primarily known for writing about Katrina. -- 66.28.243.126 ( talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It's fair to say that the Katrina articles should not have taken so much space, but given the place made to other articles she wrote, as well as the possibly controversial role they have had her career, a mention of them would make sense. I'm adding them in a shorter way, please feel free to improve. Farialima ( talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This edit substituted a Wikipedia editor's judgment about the controversy for that of what a secondary source thought notable about the controversy. Because of the WP:NOR rules, we prefer secondary sources to Wikipedia editors' interpretation of primary sources. Because of WP:WEIGHT it is also inappropriate to include lengthy ad hominem sections of Krugman's angry screed, unless we're also going to include equally lengthy encomiums from George Will and others. THF ( talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This paragraph:
is original research and synthesis. If someone explicitly criticized Shlaes for not accurately anticipating the course of the economy over the next nine months, there might be some relevance to the article, and one can cite that secondary source, but she simply wrote an op-ed that made an accurate observation about the state of the economy in June. THF ( talk) 14:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph at issue is neither properly cited nor worded for this article in my opinion. Collect ( talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
We should add a {{ main}} template to the Forgotten Man controversy section. THF ( talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that the only balancing material bout the Forgotten Man was deleted. "The International Herald Tribune review by David Leonhardt includes "In a unanimous ruling the court found the (chicken pricing) code to be an unconstitutional expansion of federal authority. On the day of the ruling, Justice Louis Brandeis took aside one of Roosevelt's aides and told him, "This is the end of this business of centralization." The National Recovery Administration, the agency that had gone after the Schechters, soon dropped hundreds of similar cases and closed its doors." Leonhardt continues "other attempts to fine-tune the economy truly did fail." [1]" Fully referenced material which balances a POV setction ought to be replaced in the article. Collect ( talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
How about deleting, from the current version, quotes that are meant to show Shlaes as a prescient observer (Fannie and Freddie) or to showcase her views (WSJ op-ed), and also leave out the instances where she's been glaringly wrong (Katrina, recession). The Forgotten Man section could give a reasonable idea of her views and the critical reaction. I'm not thrilled with this solution, but it's hard to see a better one emerging. JQ ( talk) 05:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What's not mentioned is FDR devalued the dollar. $20 per ounce of gold to $35 per ounce of gold. It's easy to have 9 to 11 percent growth of GNP, high unemployment, and lots of government works projects when the government can create all the money in wants.
Also, the book is more about the effects of government policy on people and business at a personal level, and not a tome on economic theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.7.169 ( talk) 06:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
71.12.223.111 is sadly simply correct, Peter Temin showed this in the 70s, all the wishful pc revisionism can' t change that. It is also "strange" that the newnewdealers completly ignore the stalinist or (even worse?) Ialian-fascist leanings of many of the chief administrators of the New Deal. Hitler's economic success with new deal type policies might also give pause for thought?-- Radh ( talk) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLP states "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...")." Although there are some grey areas here, it seems pretty clear that a blog published by a magazine (such as Atlantic or The Economist) is a source similar to an opinion column in the same magazine. Similarly, if a political organization criticises the subject of a BLP, the notability of the criticism doesn't depend on the format. If the facts are clear (as in the Gramm and Katrina cases) and the only question is whether anyone notable has mentioned them, that should be decisive. JQ ( talk) 11:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The controversies section should be expanded. Much of Amity Shlaes scholarly work has been repeatedly questioned for it's accuracy.
Her work has been questioned as: selectively reporting facts, ignoring inconvenient facts, and creating a revisionist mythology of verifiable history.
"Revisionists' blind view of New Deal." By Matthew Dallek http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6CF51F59-18FE-70B2-A858CD862CDC69EA
The key graph by historian Dallek's criticism of Shlaes writing is:
Amity Shlaes historical scholarship and accounting methodology has been questioned by both credible historians as well as economics professors. There's a growing body of evidence that Amity Shlaes is a fiction writer pretending to write non-fiction to push a political agenda.
Below it's asked if George Will's encomium to Amity Shlaes should be included. The same George Will who has decided to question the science behind global climate change? George "doubts global science" Will is not in the same league as Paul "noble prize" Krugman. That creates a false equivalency that's a discredit to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.162.63 ( talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Neither Krugman nor Wills are scientists. And neither has won a Nobel (not noble) Prize. And none of this has anything to do with whether one journalist's praise of another should be included in a Wikipedia article. 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 05:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The numbers cited in this section are misleading: the slump was so great, production 60 p.c. of early 20s figures!, that the 1933 recovery at first glance of course looks enormous, but was not, also new recession in 37. The recession ended with WW2 only (and then left the much loved insustrial-military complex in its wake, compare US military spending pre and post WW2 and you will be shocked).-- Radh ( talk) 13:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
One problem is with the word ordering and the tone of this section (which is meant for criticism). For instance, the positive reviews "raved", while the negative ones "accused." I suggest choosing less emotionally loaded terms and using the same subject-verb-object structure for all sentences. Another example is that the qualifications of "adjunct professor, and historian on liberal history, Matthew Dallek" stands out, while the (unabashedly) conservative nature of the National Review is glossed over. We should be consistent—I suggest removing the entire phrase "adjunct professor, and historian on liberal history" and allowing the citation or a wikipedia page link on the person allow the user to adopt an informed opinion. The sentence and paragraph structure is quite confusing as a whole, I wish it were more logically ordered—move the positive reviews to its own paragraph, and organize the criticisms by type and response, keep response length from being many times longer than the criticism (isn’t that what citation is for?). -- tychay —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
Shlaes's book is widely praised (great reviews in the WSJ, NY Review of Books, Foreign Affairs, etc.), but somehow only the criticism from liberals concerned about the political ramifications of her work is in the article--and not even Shlaes's response rebutting the false claims of inaccuracy. THF ( talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Here, exemplified, is hypocrisy. You say on one hand that you have not and will not read the book, due most likely due to your own desire to believe something, and then go on to say "folks who hate the New Deal before they even pick up the book obviously love it," referring to the book. This is what the left does. They decide who is the authority and if they disagree with you then they're suddenly no longer an authority. There are literally hundreds of economists who laud this book, but because you say ipse dixit that you "can't imagine historians of the New Deal giving it status among the canonical scholarly works about that era." Newsflash. Shaels IS a historian of the New Deal.
The piece de resistance is of course, after you recognize how ridiculous The Forgotten Man section of the article is, you go ahead and say, "well, I'm not gonna change it anyway." What a hypocrite. -heyzeusful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyzeusful ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Economist Brad DeLong pointed out that "Amity Shlaes was fired from the Financial Times for lying about the Bush administration's preparedness to deal with Hurricane Katrina." http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/jonathan-chait-on-new-deal-denialism.html
Since part of the article about Shlaes reads like a curriculum vitae, with prominent mention of her work at the Financial Times, her termination at the Financial Times for shoddy journalism should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.162.63 ( talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A search on "Amity Shlaes" reveals the two self contradictory posts, as well as letters to the editor complaining about her articles, and then nothing from FT, so the statement by Crooked Timber, "A search by date suggests that Shlaes produced one more column (which tried to blame the Katrina shambles on the Evils of Federalism, directly contradicting what she had said the previous week), a piece for the wealth section, and a book review over the next couple of weeks, and was then gone forever" is factually correct. Since those rather egregious displays of hackery, she has not graced the pages of FT.
As to listing Delong and Yglesias as, "Just bloggers," while it might be true for the former, it is not true for the latter. Mr. Delong, notwithstanding his government experience, is just a professor blogging. Matthew Yglesias, on the other hand, has been employed as a writer by a number of journals, and as such, this is a statement by someone in the field.
So we KNOW that she published these articles, and that she was excoriated in the letters page, and that she was never published by FT again, and we KNOW that a professional in the punditry industry has explicitly stated that he was fired.
I would also note that repeating Mr. Yglesias's statement is NOT libelous, because Ms. Shlaes is a public figure, and by publishing an explicit statement of someone in the business, you are not exhibiting either "malice" or a "reckless disregard for the truth."
Is the statement that, with in the space of N weeks, Amity Shlaes published two contradictory articles on the Bush Administration's handling of Katrina (true from the search of the archives), and thereafter, her relationship with the FT ended (also true from the archives), and a number of people (links to CT, Yglesias, Delong) have suggested that she was terminated.[User:msaroff|msaroff]] ( talk) 4:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I don't get this one: I cleaned up the links (some were direct links, and some were direct references, and noted that her last articles at FT were published in September, 2005. That all stayed, but the the link which shows her articles on FT was removed. There is no statement of firing. There is no reference to the controversy as to her 2nd and 3rd to last articles at FT, nor any to the circumstances under which she left, just an end date. The end date remains, but the link which provides a citation for the end date is removed? Please explain how the addition of, "until September, 2005," to describe her the dates of her tenure at FT is acceptable, but the link which shows that her last article was published on September 23, 2005 is somehow not acceptable? Mongo confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaroff ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in this for other articles as well. Are you allowed to provide links to columns and pieces written by the subject of an article, or not? I had thought you were; look at Wikipedia's Westbrook Pegler article. It has links to several articles written by Pegler that add greatly to understanding the subject. Why can there not be links to pieces by Amity Shlaes in the Amity Shlaes article? 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 05:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how, but would it be possible to convey in some way that of the numerous honors and awards mentioned in this entry, virtually all were given by conservative organizations? Not to mention this seems misleading. 75.35.209.135 ( talk) 08:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Nancy R.
There may be something of merit here, but as written, I can't figure out what the point is (vis a vis Shlaes) and therefore can't fix it. Therefore deleting, but paragraph is here in its entirety if someone wants to fix it and put it back.
Citation #20 "Wasting Away in Hooverville" by Jonathan Chait from a March 18, 2009 edition of The New Republic has a link to just The New Republic's website and not the article itself. I would highly recommend a link directly to article as the link is kind of meaningless otherwise. Here is a direct link:
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/wasting-away-hooverville
I would make the change myself, but as thesis is a controversial article and such any change I make would, understandably, probably be reverted to assure I hadn't done something nefarious. Thus could someone with some history on editing this article make this tiny correction? I am aware there is much controversy, but I think whatever side you may take on this article, a correct link for a citation that is already included should be something everyone can agree upon. 131.215.32.217 ( talk) 17:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Nat
I'm confused. Amity Shlaes only has a B.A. in English, yet she has lectured a graduate-level course at NYU? Don't most universities require graduate degrees, and preferably Ph.D.s, in order to teach? Is some of her education missing from this article? -- JHP ( talk) 05:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This article's previous account of Roth's review quoted a partial sentence that expounded Schlaes's position -- crucially omitting the opening words "She points out" -- as if it constituted an outright endorsement of Shlaes's overall argument. Actually, if you read the piece as a whole, the author tried to present both Shlaes's and Krugman's positions; the piece ends remarkably agnostically. I have tried to give a balanced account of Roth's piece. Nandt1 ( talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
==Some discussion of her family background from a Booknotes with Brian Lamb interview, if anyone cares to make this article more robust. 74.193.221.158 ( talk) 07:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Only a BA from Yale is listed, but later it says she is an Assoc. Prof. of Economics somewhere. Is there a degree missing? or if not, how do you get to teach economics without a degree in the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.78.2 ( talk) 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The pro-Shlaes content is given too much weight in this article. Generally, praise for the subject of an article should not be quoted (and often not even mentioned) unless it adds something substantive to the article. Detailed listings of lectures, articles, and other minor publications supported only by primary sources is inappropriate as well - we aren't a CV database like LinkedIn. All in all substantial trimming is needed. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In the opening sentence, Shlaes' description as a "libertarian" was reverted and switched to "classical liberal" without explanation. "Libertarian" was supported by this reliable source:
"Classical liberal" is being supported by these sources:
Per our policy on verifiability, all disputed content must be supported by reliable sources. If there is a conflict among reliable sources then the conflict must be described neutrally. In this case we have no conflict: the reliable source says Shales is libertarian. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The Liberty21 source was replaced with this one:
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The article has been reverted to say in the lead section that Shlaes authored four New York Times bestsellers, but this isn't supported by reliable sources for all four of Shlaes' books. There also appears to be an undue emphasis on the bestselling status of the books throughout the article. Per our policy on verifiability, all content should be verifiable with reliable sources, and should be presented neutrally. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sramos92, the fact that Shlaes is serving as a resident scholar at King's College doesn't appear to be sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. I think we need an independent secondary source, rather than a primary source, before we include this detail. Your thoughts please. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)