![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jacobin magazine is described as radical left under the Critical reception heading. Loaded words without an agreed definition are used here for persuasion and introduce bias whether this opinion is intentional or not. Is the source Jacobin worth mentioning at all if it's described as radical left? Jacobin, or Fox News or the New York Times? The debate here isn't the media - loaded terms like left or right need to be avoided.
Seriously? Are those the words of the author of the wiki article, or of the book author himself? -- 87.179.4.25 ( talk) 23:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
... Why are you asking? A massive amount of gold and silver was extracted from the Americas.
@ Grayfell: I accept that Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable", including personal blogs and Wikipedia.
However, I think they are appropriate on "talk" pages. In particular, if such references are deleted, I think it's preferable to move the questionable content to the associated "talk" page, which I'm doing now: On 2019-03-07 an anonymous user (134.7.130.142) deleted a reference to a blog by Ann Leckie, who "observed that Graeber had too many errors regarding subjects with which she was familiar for her to trust his statements regarding subjects with which she was not." A few minutes later User:Grayfell deleted a reference to a blog by Bradford DeLong, a "Professor" (and therefore presumably tenured) of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley.
Prior to the first of these two deletions the passage read as follows:
I read Graeber's Debt a few years ago and was impressed with it. However, I don't have the expertise of DeLong. Therefore, before I cite it again, I think I should review criticisms like his to help me evaluate the extent to which I believe Graeber. For that purpose, I think it's useful to retain those references at least in this "Talk" page. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 12:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The lede paragraph and the book cover include the comma in "5,000" but the title of this article ("Debt: The First 5000 Years") does not include a comma. Should we put the comma in? Harej ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's move a few sentences into a different section. Starting with "Nevertheless, Graeber's ideas" and continuing till the end of that paragraph - let's move those sentences into the section entitled "Critical reception." We'll need to slightly change the wording, so that it will still flow like the rest does. The section "Anti-capitalist critique" contains *descriptions* of the ideas in the book, whereas the section "Critical reception" contains *criticisms* of the ideas in the book. keenuck ( talk) 11:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Brad deLong, Prof of economic history at Univ California Berkeley, is a well known blogger. He did an entire series of blog posts criticizing debt as full of BS and factual errors eg https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/11/monday-smackdown-in-the-absence-of-high-quality-delong-smackdowns-back-to-david-graeber.html
I think a professor at UCB is, by definition a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:D00:3CA0:39DF:89AA:1A3:1F55 ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jacobin magazine is described as radical left under the Critical reception heading. Loaded words without an agreed definition are used here for persuasion and introduce bias whether this opinion is intentional or not. Is the source Jacobin worth mentioning at all if it's described as radical left? Jacobin, or Fox News or the New York Times? The debate here isn't the media - loaded terms like left or right need to be avoided.
Seriously? Are those the words of the author of the wiki article, or of the book author himself? -- 87.179.4.25 ( talk) 23:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
... Why are you asking? A massive amount of gold and silver was extracted from the Americas.
@ Grayfell: I accept that Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable", including personal blogs and Wikipedia.
However, I think they are appropriate on "talk" pages. In particular, if such references are deleted, I think it's preferable to move the questionable content to the associated "talk" page, which I'm doing now: On 2019-03-07 an anonymous user (134.7.130.142) deleted a reference to a blog by Ann Leckie, who "observed that Graeber had too many errors regarding subjects with which she was familiar for her to trust his statements regarding subjects with which she was not." A few minutes later User:Grayfell deleted a reference to a blog by Bradford DeLong, a "Professor" (and therefore presumably tenured) of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley.
Prior to the first of these two deletions the passage read as follows:
I read Graeber's Debt a few years ago and was impressed with it. However, I don't have the expertise of DeLong. Therefore, before I cite it again, I think I should review criticisms like his to help me evaluate the extent to which I believe Graeber. For that purpose, I think it's useful to retain those references at least in this "Talk" page. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 12:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The lede paragraph and the book cover include the comma in "5,000" but the title of this article ("Debt: The First 5000 Years") does not include a comma. Should we put the comma in? Harej ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's move a few sentences into a different section. Starting with "Nevertheless, Graeber's ideas" and continuing till the end of that paragraph - let's move those sentences into the section entitled "Critical reception." We'll need to slightly change the wording, so that it will still flow like the rest does. The section "Anti-capitalist critique" contains *descriptions* of the ideas in the book, whereas the section "Critical reception" contains *criticisms* of the ideas in the book. keenuck ( talk) 11:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Brad deLong, Prof of economic history at Univ California Berkeley, is a well known blogger. He did an entire series of blog posts criticizing debt as full of BS and factual errors eg https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/11/monday-smackdown-in-the-absence-of-high-quality-delong-smackdowns-back-to-david-graeber.html
I think a professor at UCB is, by definition a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:D00:3CA0:39DF:89AA:1A3:1F55 ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)