Talk:Thomas Sowell: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Template:WikiProject Columbia University Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Journalism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

To-do list for Thomas Sowell: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-09-09 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Prepare for Good Article status Cleanup : Essay length content that needs to be summarized Expand : More well referenced criticism Photo : Needs a free photo (preferably recent) Wikify : Remove all content that is not encyclopedic in its style (See WP:Encyclopedia)

I have suggested a merge from Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One because the book is apparently not notable enough outside the context of this topic to own to warrant its own Wikipedia article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. This page is already too long. DougHill (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 30 years of reading and following Sowell, I don't recall his ever having self-identified as a member of the Republican party. Even if some of his views are aligned with the party and if he supports or votes for some of its candidates, these facts neither signify nor imply membership. Trackerseal (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Trackerseal[reply]

If it's not sourced, in a biography of a living person, out the statement goes. Some states have laws defining party membership in terms of voter registration (and, as I recall, California is one of those) while other states do not. In my state, it is quite unclear who is a member of what party, and there is a lot of crossover voting in primary elections and a lot of ticket-splitting in general elections. Where Sowell lives, it should be a matter of public record who is registered as a member of what party, if any. P.S. As I recall, but I don't have the source at hand, Sowell has written an article specifically distancing himself from identification as a "conservative," for reasons similar to those of Hayek for not accepting that label. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a try at wikifying the "thought" section. However, I think the font is too big for those long titles, and I liked the numbers before. I'll see if I can fix that. If I can't, please feel free to try. DougHill (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself liked the old numbers of the previous version which made the page appear less "loud". However since you reduced the font, it looks a bit better. I'll leave what you have done "as is." BonusDuke (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the least concise, least professional articles I've seen on Wikipedia. The entire (gigantic article) is a slobberfest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.182.180 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this article is factually correct. If you want a slobberfest then look up Krugman or Marx's articles. Or type in Marxism, reading those article you would have never thought that Marxism had endured any criticism. Even someone like Michael Moore does not have a criticism section. It is ridiculous.

l:So fix something. This is Wikipedia, after all. DougHill (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is a big slobberfest but I don't know enough about the subject, and haven't the free time to research him, to fix it myself. Nevertheless, if DougHill agrees that this article is too in favour of the subject, he should have done what I'm about to do, namely stick a cleanup template on it. Lexo (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example of uncritical acceptance of the subject's views, consider this paragraph: "Sowell has stated that he was a Marxist during "the decade of my 20s." His experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject Marxism in favor of free market economic theory. His intern work revealed a correlation between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry. Studying the patterns led to his conclusion that the government employees who administered the minimum wage law cared not that they may be causing higher unemployment of the poor by enforcing that law; their primary concern was keeping their own jobs secure." This is a non-sequitur and if it's supposed to be an example of Sowell's brilliance, it's not a good one. The fact that the Puerto Rican government employees Sowell met were timeservers does not invalidate Marxist economic theory, and nor does the fact that mandated minimum wages law caused unemployment. What it shows is that Puerto Rican sugar manufacturers got around the law, because presumably they hired people who didn't have to work minimum wage. I am not impressed that this subject even has an article of this size, let alone that it accepts waffle like this. Lexo (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wonder myself what his being a Marxist had to do with the Puerto Rican sugar industry. However the story is true and appears in his biography 'A Personal Odyssey" - pages 131-132. On those pages he mentions the Puerto Rico situation and on page 132 explicitly states that he was a Marxist. QUOTE:

"I had remained a Marxist, despite being at the University of Chicago, but now my experience in Washington began a process of changing my mind completely as to how to deal with social problems."

The text in the article should state that Sowell remained a Marxist during his early college career and early days working for the federal government. page 131-132. That should fix the matter. Otherwise the article, while by no means perfect appears fine to me. BonusDuke (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to change the article for the better, go ahead and do so. Don't waste your time on the discussion page doing a critical review of the page; if you want to be a critic, there are ways you can reach more people and get more money for the pleasure. If you want to make a contribution to an online encyclopedia, go ahead. 188.74.111.222 (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Often people read a wikipedia article and find problems with it but realize that they are not knowledgeable enough in the subject to make changes themselves or they feel that the issues should be discussed to avoid rampant splurges of different people re-correcting it over and over as they battle for their viewpoint. For these reasons it seems to me that discussing problems on the TALK page is a perfectly reasonable way to participate in and contribute to the wikipedia process. Many people contribute to larger works by discussing topics with the people who create them or those who are have more expertise. It doesn't make sense to me to discourage people from attempting to be involved in that fashion. In the same way that you essentially say they are elitist jerks for being critics you are putting yourself in a similar role by claiming that you are superior because you're a doer not a talker. Many large works like dictionaries and such can benefit from discussion about even small sections. Having many minds involved is not only advantageous in that you can spread out the work and specialize in topics but also because you can have many points of view discussed on a single topic, which in my view gives you a better chance of doing a good job on that single topic than if one person wrote each article in a vacuum or if people simply wrote over each others' work constantly without explaining why or discussing the merits of different methods. Skiingdemon (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...also, holy crap the Thought section of this article is totally out of hand. Someone (who's a much better and smarter person than me) should fix that :) Skiingdemon (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexo: Sowell's experience with the minimum wage and sugar does go to the very heart of Marxian economics. First I would note that Sowell's conversion was well under way, but it took his inturn experience with the government for the scales to drop from his eyes. Second You claim "His intern work revealed a correlation between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry." Marxists have a specific idea about the "increasing misery of the proletariat" and its causes: unrestrained competition. So if the economic misfortunes of workers have different causes namely artificially high wages, then Marxian economics is wrong. Quibble if you wish, but Sowell's 1985 book on the subject, finished the job with devastating clarity and logic. Finally just because you don't understand the link doesn't mean there isn't one. As to the bureaucrats, the question is are the poor better off being in charge of their own interests or having those same interests watched over by bureaucrats who may or may not be interested in their well being and whose priorities may be in conflict with those they are supposed to be looking out for?99.168.86.65 (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Spiker 22 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Spiker_22[reply]

The key point is to make sure that all statements in a biography of a living person are sourced. Look for sources, and fix what you can fix. Thomas Sowell has had a long enough public career as a writer about public policy that it ought to be possible for anyone with good library access to find much commentary about his writings and views and much independent reporting of details of his life. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone found any new sources yet? There should be plenty of sources available for motivated Wikipedians to use to refine the perspective on Sowell in this article. Cite sources, and everyone can check what the sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I agree that this article is a big slobberfest", and then asserting "I don't know enough about the subject" is a contradiction-- how can it be a big slobberfest if you don't know enough about the subject? This immaturity also reflects the criticisms of Sowell in the article; the criticism in the article that states "In addition, some studies claim that welfare systems often reduce poverty, contrary to Sowell's claims indicating that welfare exacerbates poverty". In the first citation of Mr. Kenworthy's study, he states explicitly, ". . .redistribution may indeed reduce poverty, but only in the short run and only if poverty is defined in relative terms. . ." and that, ". . .nations with more generous social-welfare benefits tend to have higher poverty rates over the long run. . ." I'm going to remove this criticism as it misleads the casual reader.TheObservee (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slobberfest because the only criticism of Sowell is from a political level, most of it being shameful. On an economics standpoint, just like Hayek and Friedman, people can't argue with his principles or conclusions because they're solid on an economical level. Politically, would be impossible to get unless one party controlled everything with an iron fist. Also, they are the myriad of people who call him variations on "Uncle Tom," which is just awful. If you can find a principled person with an economic leg to stand on who criticized Sowell in an articulate way, I'd love to see that. I think you're more likely to find a bridge in Brooklyn to buy. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I need to look up the latest writings by Sowell on race and IQ, as I don't have those sources at hand, and they would be good additions to quite a few articles on Wikipedia that currently don't fit the neutral point of view core policy. Thanks to the earlier editor, whoever you are, who found those writings. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If other editors want to do actual research and find writings that are critical of Sowell's thought, just look those up, cite them, and post encyclopedic statements of what those sources say to the article. Anyone is welcome to edit the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (taking care to follow the policies about biographies of living persons.) But please refrain from tagging sections simply because you disagree with them, especially if you don't post citations to sources that show the rationale for your disagreements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that the section is too long considering that none of his "thought" was influential and some of it (welfare promoting poverty) can be disproved with a couple of peer reviewed studies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an empirical question—for which we would turn to sources for an answer—just how influential Thomas Sowell's thought is. The article is not unduly long, still being well below the length at which Wikipedia alerts editors to article length as they do new edits, so new content could be added to the article with critiques of Sowell's thought. In any good encyclopedia, statements are sourced. In Wikipedia, by Wikipedia's rules, biographies of living persons must have sources for all contentious statements. So any editor who desires to document disagreement with Sowell's thought, or lack of impact of his thought, is welcome to do so, as long as the editor accurately cites reliable sources. You have mentioned peer-reviewed studies. They must have citations, which other editors here could use to check their content. What studies did you have in mind? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two studies are prominently discussed in welfare's effect on poverty and they are "Do social-welfare policies reduce poverty? A cross-national assessment" and "Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies". CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What??? There are just as many peer reviewed studies that say the exact opposite thing. The fact that you use studies that are taken from Wikipedia and are from Mickey Mouse universities in in East and North Carolina (top economic schools) shows that you have no clue about the subject. The wikipedia article even says that there is still ongoing debate about this issue so your assertion that the issue is anywhere close to being absolute is laughable. Also the fact that you are a fan of Noam Chomsky confirms you economic illiteracy. Also the fact that you cite Media Matter, which is an indirectly Soros funded institute (proven), is desperate. It is common sense that welfare creates dependancy, most people work for economic incentives not because they like to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then if they directly join issue with something that Sowell said, they would be appropriate sources over here. This is primarily a biographical article, so the best sources are the sources that write about what someone (here, Thomas Sowell) said or did, or what other persons think about what he said or did, but if there are sources, cite those and edit away. Of course it is to be expected that other editors may check the sources and perhaps add yet more sources with differing perspectives on Sowell's life and work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm considering making a Criticism section but I don't know anyone who ever actually publicly criticized or debated Sowell. Maybe It should just be studies/sources etc.CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found something. (I've followed some of the links shown as references in your latest edit to the article.) I wonder if other editors can confirm the text of the cited Sowell columns. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You found squat, CartoonDiablo. Media Matters is a leftist criminal front group that continuously violates its tax-exempt status as a non-profit U.S. entity, as radio commentator Mark Levin has frequently stated for several years. Anything appearing on their site and quoted in the Criticism section of this article is suspect and unauthoritative. You're trying too hard, and the fact that you even started this section may indicate that you're pushing a POV.—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver, please do not rush to assume bad faith (because that is against the rules of Wikipedia). If the sources are politically motivated, they still are competent evidence that some people criticize some points of view promoted by Sowell. It may be that you can find sources to back up that the criticisms are not factually accurate, but that would be your job, to look at what reliable sources there are on the issue. Wikipedia is not for personal insults, but for collaboratively learning the art of scholarship. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMfA is not a reliable source. They've been proven wrong so often it's mind-blowing. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, every conservative blog on the Internet, but the best one is NewsBusters, which is part of the Media Research Center. But, there's a lovely invention called Google that could do that for you. I'm just sayin'. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth edition of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics has come up. If I had the book (I plan on getting it in a few months,) I could update the information as it pertains to the published works section of this article. PokeHomsar (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Do that..--Novus Orator 07:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most ridiculously bloated section I've seen in a long time. Who came up with section headings like this, "Intellectuals are “idea” workers, who often presume special wisdom and insight outside their area of expertise to guide others, while being unaccountable for results"? Besides ridiculously long, they are also argumentative. The entire section is nothing but a very favorable essay on Sowell's work including summaries and selected examples, and all of it is based on primary sources. This should be an encyclopedia, not a hagiography for someone who isn't even dead yet. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• An editor just reinstated one of the offending sections, with a subsection called "Ordinary citizens might benefit from analyzing issues and public policies in terms of costs, benefits and trade-offs, where scarce resources have alternative uses, rather than rely on lofty rhetoric from political leaders, activists and special interests" ("Titles should be short—preferably fewer than ten words", from the MOS: this one is 36 words). That very title for a section is warrant enough to place an "essay-like" tag on the article. The reinstated text is almost wholly based on primary sources--it cites one single secondary source--hence the "primary sources" and "original research" tags. Whoever wrote that section originally did not, in my opinion, have a firm grasp of some of WP's guidelines on sourcing and referencing, and I urge the editor who restored it to reconsider. Considering the utter reliance on primary sources, the lack of specific citations, the synthesis involved in connecting themes in Sowell's books, and the non-neutral tone, I have no option but to place a POV tag on the article. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article could definitively use some work. What I would really like to see is an expanded criticism section. It seems like there are not very many intellectuals who have critiqued his work, and it would be interesting to find it that is truly the case.--Novus Orator 03:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection on "trade-offs, constraints and incentives" needs to be there to go with the list earlier that introduces it. However, I agree that the section, and some of its headers, are too long and should be edited (including moving some of the material to other pages). I also agree that the page needs more criticism. DougHill (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides length (and excessive detail...) my problem really is with the sourcing. Criticism is fine, and Andrewlp1991 added some, but what should really be the first order of business is to summarize his work adequately, concisely, and in a neutral manner, based not on a reading of his work but on a reading of secondary sources. It's not like a song or a movie, or even a book, where WP allows a brief plot summary (really, original research)--these sections compare his books, synthesize information, make general statements about themes and topics, et cetera, and that simply cannot be: it is the essence of original research. Surely there are secondary sources available--encyclopedic articles, critiques, book reviews. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of representing what someone thinks, a popular writer like Sowell is the best source. Not his academic works but works for the general public. The concern in general with primary sources are some require original research rather than just reading the text, the text will be taken out of context by an editor or it is not easily seen if the editor is summarizing it well, and bias by the primary source. None of these are issues when the works are used to determine his viewpoint. In terms of NPOV, you can quote from When Work Disappears for alternate theories of why the ghetto is poor. Also, other works. --Javaweb (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

The Media Matters criticism paragraph really needs additional sources to stay since it is a partisan source. It would be best if a secondary news source could be found that talks about Sowell's comments, but at the least, there should be a link to Sowell's comments. Drrll (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the issue was that Media Matters is a partisan source so there needed to be a third party to validate that the statements were actually said. I adding in two articles from the Washington Monthly which showed that Republicans agreed with Sowell's Obama/Hitler comparison. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any straight news references for the last sentence? The Washington Monthly references are from opinion pieces, not news stories. Drrll (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point to original commenter. After all, the Paul Krugman article doesn't contain any similar type of criticism, although it could easily be found! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.196.173.20 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can rewrite the Thought section to be around 1800 words and keep all the most important points (with a possibility of a new article for his work). Also I think it should be renamed to something along the lines of "Work and theories". This discussion should be to pick out the 4-5 most important things he's worked on and how to create a new section based on them. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this section consisted of argumentative recapitualtion of arguments within the books cited. Inappropriate. Naterial redacterd. JTGILLICK (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not intended as a vehicle for self-promotion, commercial promotion, position promotion. Material to that end is best presented in some other venue.

JTGILLICK (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Sowell have any peer-reviewed research into economics? All I could find were critiques of various economic figures. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His list of publications is at http://www.tsowell.com/writings.html. There are a number of articles in peer-reviewed journals.--Yaush (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has every substantively rebuked Sowell's basic theories and principles because you just can't. It's why he gets denigrated on a personal level by being called some of the worst names in the book. It's what you do when you can't have a rational debate on the issues with someone. The amount of times this man has been called an "Uncle Tom" or variations thereof is mind-blowing. It's just so utterly offensive. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sowell has a lot of "Adam Smith in Theory and Practice" and "Marxian Value Reconsidered," but I meant in terms of actual research to advance economics or an economic theory. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the criticism section mention that a lot of his critics have referred to him as an "Uncle Tom" or variations thereof? I know it makes him look better, but it is a very common criticism, no matter how moronic and offensive it is. I can't find with a minute on Google any major person doing the criticism, but I'm sure someone knows of one. Most of them are blogs of unknown, at least to me, credibility. I don't want to click on them for fear of my IP address being tagged for going on what could be conspiracy theory websites. PokeHomsar (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Matters for America is not a credible source. I will remove such criticism shortly. Going to MMfA for reasonable and principled critique is like going to Alex Jones for the truth. It just doesn't happen. PokeHomsar (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]