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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sageicedlatte (
article contribs).
not a single conservative would believe a single thing this guy says - where in his article does it say that he is a communist? - otherwise this is just a fluff piece for self promotion
where is the neutral viewpoint that is critical to everything this article attempts as propaganda to promote? -- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
According to this communist fanboy, the communism of China makes them more productive than the capitalist US - please tell that to the millions killed by Mao Mr. Karabell! The answer to the title of the following article by Mr. Karabell, Why is China's stimulus working so much better than ours?, is because they have millions murdered to get there-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I came to this article to find out about his economics credentials after reading an article in which he misstated Say's Law and showed that he clearly has no understanding of basic economics principles like supply and demand. Would really appreciate it if someone could source those. 130.15.87.48 ( talk) 03:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I just made a substantial pass over the lead to reign in the puff and dewallify the prose. Many inline exlinks removed. We really don't need to know his every role at the non-notable Fred Alger, or every auspicious newspaper who has ever published one of his commentaries.
I feel the lead is still on the generous side, and that perhaps much about his books would better belong in a books subsection. — MaxEnt 16:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this article reads as if it was written for promotional purposes.
After looking over this page and comparing it to other biographies of living persons pages, I found that this is worded very incorrectly and is seeming like it's purely a page for promotional purposes like user MaxEnt above me has already said. I'm planning on reorganizing this page over the next few weeks to make it look more like a biographical page should be. These edits will mainly take place in a sandbox that I will link down below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageicedlatte ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead has way too much information that should be distributed throughout the article instead of being in the lead.
If this article is to look more like the biography of another living author like Stephen King, the section organizations should look like:
I think that the link below should be deleted because it just leads directly to a website whose URL is the person's name. This could be more evidence that the article may have been written with promotional intentions:
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sageicedlatte (
article contribs).
not a single conservative would believe a single thing this guy says - where in his article does it say that he is a communist? - otherwise this is just a fluff piece for self promotion
where is the neutral viewpoint that is critical to everything this article attempts as propaganda to promote? -- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
According to this communist fanboy, the communism of China makes them more productive than the capitalist US - please tell that to the millions killed by Mao Mr. Karabell! The answer to the title of the following article by Mr. Karabell, Why is China's stimulus working so much better than ours?, is because they have millions murdered to get there-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I came to this article to find out about his economics credentials after reading an article in which he misstated Say's Law and showed that he clearly has no understanding of basic economics principles like supply and demand. Would really appreciate it if someone could source those. 130.15.87.48 ( talk) 03:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I just made a substantial pass over the lead to reign in the puff and dewallify the prose. Many inline exlinks removed. We really don't need to know his every role at the non-notable Fred Alger, or every auspicious newspaper who has ever published one of his commentaries.
I feel the lead is still on the generous side, and that perhaps much about his books would better belong in a books subsection. — MaxEnt 16:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this article reads as if it was written for promotional purposes.
After looking over this page and comparing it to other biographies of living persons pages, I found that this is worded very incorrectly and is seeming like it's purely a page for promotional purposes like user MaxEnt above me has already said. I'm planning on reorganizing this page over the next few weeks to make it look more like a biographical page should be. These edits will mainly take place in a sandbox that I will link down below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageicedlatte ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead has way too much information that should be distributed throughout the article instead of being in the lead.
If this article is to look more like the biography of another living author like Stephen King, the section organizations should look like:
I think that the link below should be deleted because it just leads directly to a website whose URL is the person's name. This could be more evidence that the article may have been written with promotional intentions: