Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

IBD editorial

It is contrary to policy to misrepresent what the source says. The editorial must be accurately reflected, and it currently grossly misrepresented. Misrepresenting a source in a WP:BLP is contrary to policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's a sourcing issue if all we have is MMfA. However, there are other sources to show notability:

Alan Colmes, while nominally liberal, is notable and reported on this editorial. [1][2]

Sarah Palin, who is notable and non-liberal, endorsed the editorial. [3]

Breitbart, also notable and non-liberal, noticed and reported. [4]

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, notable and non-liberal, endorsed it. [5]

Washingon Monthly, notable and non-partisan, reported on it. [6]

Washington Post, notable and non-partisan, reported on it. [7]

I could go on. Do I need to? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And agreeing with the editorial thus means they endorse a comparison not present in the column AFAICT? What an interesting view of the requirements of WP:BLP. Also please note that we can not use non-RS sources which you seem wish to cite. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No way is Gohmert "reliable" ;-) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's reliably something. :-) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So your argument now is that official statements from the floor of the House of Representatives is not reliable? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note Colmes does not support the language you suggest. Palin did not use any language remotely accepting what you assert is in "implicit comparison." The Breitbart piece is not even about the topic! Gohmert did not make the claims which are given by the blogger as assertions. Nor is the WM blog post much of a "source" for BLP claims of fact. Dana Milbank, oddly enough, is not "non-partisan" by a mile - he uses such phrases as They spread Nazi labels as smoothly as Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance turned double plays. etc. He is, in fact, an "op-ed columnist" and thus his posts per WP:BLP are usable as opinions properly ascribed as such. What you could have is akin to "MMFA says that the Sowell column compared Obama to Hitler" And possibly that "Palin etc. have agreed with the column". Nothing else passes the silly season test. Collect (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable for what? Remember, we have the primary source to confirm the exact words Sowell used. We have MMfA as a secondary source confirming that this was understood by some to be an implicit comparison between Obama and Hitler. Milbank is an additional secondary source for the same thing.

The stated argument against inclusion is that, if only MMfA noticed this essay, then it's just not important enough. In other words, it would be WP:UNDUE.

Instead, we find that various notable conservatives publicly endorsed it while various liberals publicly lambasted it. This is precisely what we need to refute the claim that MMfA is some lone muckraker trying to stir up trouble on its own and nobody cares. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope - what he wrote is not "I compare Obama to Hitler" by a country mile. No one has claimed he made any explicit comparison except in the claim which makes that claim in Wikipedia's voice. Contrary to WP:V and to WP:BLP. Opinions of op-ed columnists are opinions for gosh sake! And you seem not to like the possibility of actually following Wikipedia policy and labelling opinions as "opinions." Why? Collect (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That is your (Collect's) opinion of what the source says. The fact that Palin, Gohmert, DNC, MMfA etc. say otherwise means it says otherwise. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, this is why we don't allow original research. You have an opinion of what Sowell meant, but you're not notable, or even reliable. Our notable, reliable sources are a bit more insightful, so they had no trouble recognizing the implications of Sowell's writings. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT "original research" to read simple English. It IS "original research" to find claims which are not present in the source. That is what "original research" is. We are expected and required to accurately reflect what the sources state in clear language, not to assert that we found something "implicit" in them. And my background over three decades online is quite sufficient to state that a claim is not compliant with WP:V, thank you. And op-eds are not reliable sources for claims of "fact" - especially when the fact ain;t a fact. Collect (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit, Collect. You had no consensus here for it, and it ripped out much-needed references. Let's agree on the text here before editing. You should know better. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Using a source which is not permitted under WP:BLP for a claim is absurd, and this is not a matter of "knoiwing better" is is a matter of absolute policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)b

None of the sources in the paragraph you butchered are "not permitted" by WP:BLP, so it wasn't a policy-based edit you made. Explain yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Sowell compares Obama and government to Hitler and Nazis almost every week. His most recent column does, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Undid revision 505241465 by Scjessey (talk)per WP:BLP/N discussion where the majority agreed on this as a BLP issue and solution" is a misleading edit summary. No such discussion took place so I reverted the edit. Using lies to force a POV is not good. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As you participated in the BLP/N discussion that you deny exists, and the finding of the editors there is in black and white, I ask you redact your clear personal attack forthwith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit, Collect. The "finding" is that there was no finding. It descended into a stupid argument. The majority of people supported MMfA being used, however, so now you can add edit warring to lying and POV pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What politeness on your part! You say the discussion did not exist? That it did not say that the editorial did not make any direct "comparison"? That the others there backed your singular belief that Sowell compared Obama to Hitler and that Palin agreed with that comparison? Sorry - you are way off base in the "silly season editing contest". Cheers -- and I suggest you stop templating the regulars - it is considered very poor form indeed. Collect (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I had to template because you were edit warring like a newbie. I'm frankly amazed that you are going to so much effort to defend the disgraceful comments of Sowell. He did indeed compare Obama to Hitler, as he has done many times. Look at his last 20 columns on Creators Syndicate and you will see he can't shut up about Hitler and the Nazis. I link to an example above. And yes, Palin and that other idiot from Texas praised Sowell for his poisonous nonsense. And when it came to using MMfA as a source for their opinion, the discussion at BLP/N, DRN and here have all come to the same conclusion (reliable). The disagreement is that people like you think MMfA isn't an appropriate source (which is not the same thing as reliable) because you think it is too biased. Well Palin and Gohmert are even more biased, so that argument falls on its head. It certainly isn't a BLP issue, so your BLP-based reversions are wholly inappropriate. Clearly you are too involved in this to think rationally. I came to this article from a request for dispute resolution at DRN (where I volunteer), but my uninvolved opinion was quickly rubbished by right wing ideologues. This article should be referred to ArbCom, quite frankly, because editors here have behaved disgracefully. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet others simply leave short notes instead of being violators of DNTTR -- your "had" is fatuous. BTW, I think his position on climate change is notable, and I suspect it belongs in the article. As for your "knowing" that Sowell purveys "poisonous nonsense" and that other living people with BLPs are "idiot"s, that I am "unable to think rationallly" etc. There is one editor who has, indeed, "behaved disgracefully" and I commend you to see Miror. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing worse than a POV pusher is a wikilawyering POV pusher. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan's edit is a reasonably balanced compromise. Nobody Ent 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I endorse Sarek's sensible approach to this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it still says others "endorsed the comparison" while they did not necessarily do such per RS sources - we have people with opinions and those opinions should be noted as "opinion" and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. AFAICT, Palin liked the column but made no comment that she thought Sowell "compared" Obama to Hitler at all. I still prefer my earlier compromise which kept in the controversy but did not violate WP:BLP nor WP:V. I think it would be nice for you to explain why you rejected it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You made it sound like the controversy was that MMfA objected to it, rather than that he said it in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially my rewrite from the BLP board, so I'm glad to see you on board with most of what I've been saying up to this point. [8]. I, again, protest the use of MMFA when we don't need it. The Politico source cites the DNC and the PFAW President, both noteworthy individuals, and cites Palin and Goehmert as contrasts, also noteworthy. We don't need MMFA here, so why include it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bwaaahaaahaaaa! As Thargor rewrites history, he again claims MMfA "isn't needed" and opines on how awesomely noteworthy Louie "movie theater killings were ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs" Gohmert is. ROFLMAO. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So let's see - the Washington Post covers Goehmert. Politico covers Palin and PFAW. Which of these noted MMfA again? What's the evidence that we need MMfA again? Where's the consensus that it's noteworthy again? Where did I rewrite history, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We need MMfA because the organization, like the DNC, is noteworthy and offered an opinion on the matter. You rewrote history by claiming Sarek's edit was what you wanted all along, and then you immediately changed it because I guess it wasn't. How long are you going to keep up this "I don't like it" defense? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed that the MMfA is noteworthy. Sarek's edit, like I said, is "essentially" my rewrite without the contextual details. I didn't change much other than provide necessary context. If you disagree on that, I'll need a citation on that as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I recall RSN implores that MMFA only be used as a last resort. Concur with Thargor.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a non issue. It's not about whether or not it is a reliable source (although it assuredly is) because in this case we are using it as a primary source for their own editorial comment. The issue here is that the conservative editors here don't want to see a comment from what they regard as a far left liberal organization, but they have no problem with comments coming from far right conservatives like Palin and Gohmert. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You denying that MMfA's reliability isn't an issue doesn't reflect reality - at least three of us involved in this have that specific issue as a point beyond the fact that we believe it to be unnecessary. I'm fine with comments from People From the American Way, as an example, who are about as far left as MMfA is but are actually worthy of note from actual reliable media. Your claims about your fellow editors have no basis in fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's fact. It's right here on this talk page! The conservative editors on this article do not have a policy leg to stand on, so they are using their numbers to try to block inclusion. MMfA is absolutely reliable for comments made my MMfA, which is why WP:RS isn't even a factor. It all revolves around whether or not we think MMfA's opinion is notable enough for inclusion, and I think it is at least as notable as anything said by Gohmert or Palin. If we cut out MMfA, then we must cut out Gohmert and Palin as well. Will that make you happy? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether MMfa is a RS for MMfa, it's whether there are RS that make MMfa noteworthy for inclusion, or whether including it would be wp:undue. With regards to policy, consensus isn't a leg it's a Pillar^TM. Note classification of your perception of other editor's viewpoint is neither relevant nor helpful to achieving resolution. Nobody Ent 14:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if I accept your premise, you'll have to show me why MMfA's opinion on the matter is worthy of note. Palin was covered by Politico, as was the DNC and PFAW. Goehmert was covered by the Washington Post. I ask for the umpeenth time, why is MMfA noteworthy for inclusion? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation and Arbitraton?

This is getting ridiculous, we've been through two dispute resolutions and the issue of MMfA for the Sowell article is still on virtually every noticeboard on Wikipedia.

I suggest we go through Wikipedia:Mediation and, failing that, arbitration. CartoonDiablo (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary. The issue would be resolved right now if you folks could answer the few quick questions posed to you, and you've already been turned down at arbitration twice, so perhaps forum shopping isn't going to work for you, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What is so hard about the requirement that opinions are not facts, and that they must be cited specifically as opinions? BTW, ArbCom does not handle content disputes, so I think you do not fully comprehend how WP:CONSENSUS works. Collect (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration is probably overkill for one measly paragraph. I don't see what possible objection anyone could have to the paragraph as it is right now. Collect, how specifically would you change the paragraph to address your concerns? Please reproduce the paragraph below with your changes in bold and then we can tweak until we have agreement. (no need for the refs) -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters for America criticised a column for implicitly comparing the Barack Obama administration's actions with the precepts of Adolf Hitler in an editorial for Investor's Business Daily[32] after the creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill.[33][34] Republicans such as Sarah Palin[34] and Representative Louie Gohmert have endorsed Sowell's editorial.

Was my proposal as you can note in the article edit history. It is short and concise, clearly and properly worded, includes your desire to have MMfA used, and is NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I endorse. While there is no evidence that MMfA opinion is notable, it does not violate undue weight. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What of the notable comment from the DNC? I'd consider endorsing if that can be worked back in. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with what's there minus MMfA? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole reason the "incident" was notable was because organizations like MMfA and the DNC commented on it. If you don't include these, what the hell point is there for having the paragraph at all? This is really so obvious and it shouldn't need explaining. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The DNC and PFAW were noting it enough without MMfA. There's no evidence to suggest mmfA's criticism had any actual impact, as it wasn't noted anywhere else. We should ditch it for that reason, even if we ignore the other good reasons to ditch it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence to suggest anyone's criticism had any impact, since Sowell continues to regularly compare Obama and the government to Hitler and the Nazis. You cannot give me a logical reason why MMfA should be excluded, and now you're basically the only person objecting to it. It's time for you to let this one go, Thargor. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to provide reliable source cites for the "continues to regularly compare Obama ... to Hitler"? Else I will trust it is what you WP:KNOW to be the WP:TRUTH which is not how BLPs get edited. Cheers. I honestly think my suggested edit was correct and proper, by the way. Collect (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I cited one earlier on this talk page. Out of the horse's mouth: Nazis et all. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Politico noted two criticisms. The logical reasons are that MMfA isn't noteworthy, wasn't noticed by anyone in the media, is probably not a reliable source, and is not a good source for a BLP given the complete lack of consensus for inclusion. How's this - I'll meet you halfway: prove that MMfA is noteworthy in this context, that the major media credits MMfA for the attention, and I'll be glad to let it go. Show some shred of evidence to support your position and I'll gladly back down. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not halfway. MMfA is a noteworthy organization in itself and published an opinion about this particular column. And enough with your "probably not a reliable source" bullshit - it has already been established in discussions all over Wikipedia that it is a reliable source. In fact, this article doesn't need your say-so to include the MMfA stuff because everyone else, even Collect and Arzel have "endorsed" a version of the paragraph that includes it. This discussion has reminded me of a famous, often-quoted saying: "Debating Republicans is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could be the worlds best chess player, but the pigeon is still going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and walk around triumphantly." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your continued rudeness aside, I don't see any evidence cited that MMfA's criticisms are noteworthy on their own, or that discussions have established that it's reliable. I'm not going to speak for Azreal or Collect, but even if they somehow do agree with you, they cannot trump sitewide policy or consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. Sitewide policy supports inclusion, and local consensus now supports inclusion. Only you don't. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If policy and consensus is on your side, you wouldn't be avoiding providing that evidence all this time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Got awfully quiet there, Scjessey. Are you able to show evidence for your position or not? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the point in saying anything? You are the only one saying MMfA isn't a reliable source and so your opinion and comments no longer count for much of anything. Your unwillingness to compromise has pushed you out of the game. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've shown, I'm hardly the only one. I'm perfectly willing to compromise - my compromise language is what's in the article save MMfA! Whatever happened to "if in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious," anyway? If you can't justify adding it, we take it out, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It has already been justified and there is no doubt. You're just flogging a dead horse. Until you say something constructive, I shall be ignoring all of your future comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeating it does not make it true. If you can't demonstrate the evidence, we'll remove it. Justification needs to be provided by those including the information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed it because the DRN was closed shortly afterward, see my post about evidence re reliability for facts here (although this question is irrelevant to the current article, which only cites MMfA for views, not facts). You have also been advised to try something new like an RFC, so why not? -Hugetim ^(talk) 23:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that it's just engaging in more forum shopping, and I fail to see any evidence that an RFC will force CD and Scjessey to provide evidence for their claims, nor that they'll accept the results if they don't go their way - they hardly want to actually discuss the issues to begin with, so it appears to be a futile undertaking. We have two volunteers at the BLP board regarding this very conflict showing significant issues with using MMfA in BLPs as well, and you'd think they don't exist reading this exchange. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten, I came into this discussion from DRN (where I'm a volunteer). The discussions at DRN and BLPN both yielded a consensus (albeit not a strong one) that using MMfA is acceptable because it is being used as a source for its own opinion, not as a source for facts (as Hugetim says above). The pattern is common:

1. Article cites MMfA
2. Conservative-leaning editors object to use of MMfA, rant about how it is "extreme left wing", etc.
3. Most editors agree MMfA is fine
4. Deadlock occurs (because consensus is not a vote), so off it goes to one or more content-related noticeboards
5. Noticeboard discussions still conclude MMfA is fine
6. Everyone goes back to article talk and argues over what the noticeboard discussions concluded

Which is where we are now. It happens over and over again in many, many articles (including BLPs) and it is very frustrating. We don't need an RFC, or a 3rd opinion, or anything like this. We just need the one holdout to accept that the use of MMfA in this instance is perfectly acceptable, and continued resistance is just being plain tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not "one holdout." There are a number of people over the course of this dispute who agree with me and who have not stated otherwise. I'll back down when you stop filibustering and start providing proof of the consensus regarding the reliability and use of MMfA. Quit avoiding and start providing proof for your claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Already provided, not wasting any more time on you, only commented because someone else did. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It clearly has *not* been provided, as the only "evidence" provided are non-binding dispute resolutions, one of which did not even cover the central point of the dispute, but your stonewalling pretty much demonstrates the lack of support for your position here. Duly noted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. If we cannot provide evidence to support the consensus or the reliability, per policy, it must be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The article as it currently reads has consensus and follows policy, which is why there is silence. If you were to go against that consensus and remove something, the silence would end. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Prove it, then. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You prove that excluding MMfA is "per policy". It's both relevant and reliable. You're the one who stands apart from the consensus on this. You have to convince everyone else. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have. Numerous discussions have shown a decided lack of consensus for inclusion on the site, both in relevance and in noteworthiness, both overall and at this page. If there's a different result, I've asked you for weeks to demonstrate it, and you have not done so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You are again incorrect. Exactly zero discussions have concluded MMfA must be excluded, hence inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest reading back. And the burden of proof is on those who want inclusion, in any regard. You have not provided that proof, ergo... Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is getting nowhere. As far as I can tell, MMfA is a reliable source for many things. It's being used as such today. If you want to argue that it's not reliable for its use here, you need to make an active case. If you don't, you've got nothing on your side but stubbornness, and that turns out not to be supported by policy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The active case is still the same - there is no consensus sitewide for its use for reliability on anything, it is unnecessary here, especially for a BLP, its opinion on this matter is not noteworthy as no reliable source has noted it, and, most importantly, we don't need it. I'm not the stubborn one here, it's up to those who want to include information to justify its inclusion. This has not happened. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Thargor. The silence you have observed confirms that what is currently in the article has an implicit consensus. If you want to remove MMfA, you will need to win over the rest of the editors here and establish a new consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really, it's more that people are smartly not edit warring. I should have removed it days ago, but I've been better than most and have tried to actually get you to prove your claims. As your essay notes, "silence is the weakest kind of consensus." As your userpage notes, "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious." Where's the proof for your claims, Scjessey? We're all waiting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is waiting for anything, Thargor. I see you have gone back to being your usual, tendentious self so I'm going to go back to ignoring you. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So this means we can make the change, since you're not interested in justifying it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to build a consensus before you can change it. Current consensus is reflected by the current state of the article, since only you has complained about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"We're all waiting." Silence may be the weakest form of consensus, but it is still consensus. -Hugetim ^(talk) 00:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm looking for evidence that it's consensus and not people worn out by Scjessey's continued filibustering. If the evidence isn't forthcoming, the information will be removed when I return. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. If you remove this, I will restore it, because Scjessey has more than made their case for the reliability of this source. If you are not willing to accept the consensus, feel free to escalate, but if you edit war, I'll just get you blocked. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and WP:AGF your threat to edit war is ill-advised. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous, Collect. Thargor has threatened to remove the content that has consensus here and so Still-24-45-42-125 would be perfectly correct to revert such an action, provided it was just a single revert (I would not condone more). There's nothing in what Still-24-45-42-125 says that suggests an assumption of bad faith or a personal attack. So in fact it is you who needs to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I attacked no one, and your own behaviour is on record at WP:WQA, I think that I stand on far firmer ground than you or he. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are deluded. You accused someone of a personal attack and not assuming good faith when they had done neither, so that makes you the offender. And as for your claim about my "record" at WP:WQA, that's just bullshit you fabricated in an attempt to wikilawyer your way into winning a content dispute. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24 said if you edit war, I'll just get you blocked - I referred him to NPA and AGF, as is proper -- from that you assert that I am "deluded"??? Scjessey -- I fear that your idea of civility is not congruent with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Collect (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24 saying he'll get Thargor blocked for edit warring is perfectly reasonably. Thargor has threatened to remove content against consensus. He knows it would be highly controversial, do doubtless he is aware it will be reverted. In essence, Thargor threatened to spark an edit war. And yes, I said you are deluded. And your recent comments also demonstrate that you're a dick as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Collect is threatening to edit-war? I didn't see anything about that. Collect, what are you talking about? All I see about edit warring is my reminder to Thargor about not doing it. You're confusing me... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing that anyone could post that bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: [9] where Scjessey stated I thought the pigeon quote was pretty funny. I think it aptly captures the frustration of trying to keep an article neutral when it is under siege by intransigent, conservative editors ideologues like those who have attacked me here, [10] Scjessey (talk · contribs) has helped create the battleground atmosphere with a string of bellicose, polemic and uncivil comments in the run up to this case (ArbCom decision), and many other examples. When one calls another editor a liar, one must expect the other editor to respond with facts. Have a cup of tea or so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It was funny. It perfectly encapsulates what it is like to deal with Republicans. You want ammo, Collect? Fine. You're acting like an asshole for dragging your WQA shit here, and you're acting like an asshole for dragging up an ArbCom case for which I was not sanctioned. What are you, twelve? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We all know what Collect is because he keeps revealing himself through his actions. Let him keep doing it. Every time he does something silly, it goes on his permanent record, undermining his credibility. We can't stop him from self-destructing. All we can do is stay out of the way and not get caught in his downward spiral. So let him say absurd, uncivil things. Let him make ridiculous claims about what Wikipedia policy says. Let him do whatever he wants, so long as it doesn't harm articles and we don't sink to his level.

If you redact your amusing and accurate vulgarity above, you'll keep your own nose clean. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Section break

• Comment to Thargor: Do not use {{Under discussion-inline}} in the article. In fact, don't use it in any article. It is meant purely for Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Put a better tag there, thanks for the heads-up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thargor I'm going to say this for the last time: the consensus first stated by Debbie. W and then Steven Zhang are the consensuses that say why MMfA is a valid source. If you have any questions regarding that, re-read those two dispute resolution opinions. And before you claim:

• Debbie W. was blocked for a reason unrelated to dispute resolution
• Dispute resolution is non-binding

Those points are completely irrelevant and don't change the fact that the consensus for both discussions is that MMfA is a valid source. To the others that don't want mediation/arbitration stop going to other boards because this issue was solved twice in dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

CD, as noted to you a thousand times, those are not binding decisions. You need to demonstrate where the consensus is, you cannot keep repeating the same thing over and over that's been proven wrong and hope, someday, it's right. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So did you miss the bullet point of "dispute resolution is non-binding" or "If you have any questions regarding that, re-read those two dispute resolution opinions"?

Here is the consensus demonstrated, TWICE:

*Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE Debbie W was in no position to claim concensus and was banned as a distruptive sock abuser shortly after this claim. Arzel (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has gone WAY off track. The dispute resolution does not address conduct matters - and this discussion has been very unproductive. If a discussion has taken place regarding the use of a source on the RSN and a clear result was not achieved, you can ask for more input with a community RFC. Yelling at each other is not the way to resolve this. From the discussion here, it appears that the reliability of a the MMfA source has been confirmed - so the key here is attributing the point of view to MMfA - you cannot exclude a significant viewpoint from an article just because you don't like it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and is a serious conduct matter. I suggest that the discussed material be included as long as it is attributed to MMfA, and everyone here gets on with their lives and does something more productive. Steven Zhang 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you personally do not agree to the consensus does not changed the fact that it exists and has been demonstrated over and over again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, dispute resolution does not build consensus and is not binding. The fact that you keep citing it tells me that you know there isn't consensus for your position. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For the final time. Debbie was in NO position to claim concensus in that section. Not to mention Debbis was a sock abusing/Mitt Romney hating editor that has been banned for disruptive behaviour on WP. DR is also not binding. Steven, FWIW, did not even consider whether MMfA is a significant viewpoint, it is not, especially not when no one else gives a crap about the issue. Arzel (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Image

How can it be we don't have an image? --MeUser42 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no images available that we can be sure are in the public domain. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Terrible Article

This has got to be the worst Articles I have ever seen written on Wikipedia. It has no flow or order and has random quotes thrown all around it. Somebody please clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Intellectual in Society

From reading this Talk and a few other articles talk's and the resulting Article, I would have to say Thomas Sowell Analysis of Intellectuals is right. Look at the MMFA debate.

Other then the bio this article seem more like an attempt to make it's own claim "of the writter" then just stating the fact.

A encyclopedic is just a regurgitation of fact. The Author have no opinion, there job it to find fact, then state them. If the fact can't be proven as fact, remove it.

I'm getting a little scared of wikipedia after reading Sowells' book.

What voice will writing history Online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You've convinced me. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol so true, Sowell got it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.149.218 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Hitler controversy?

We've gone through this before and all the material was justified. Consensus can't be used for what seems like a clear POV attempt to remove something noteworthy. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No response on the removal of major material? --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the previous discussion, including the clarification for the benefit of those who oppose this, that we have Sowell's own words which are RS as to his view and we have secondary opinions and references to those views which establish the noteworthiness of the content for the Encyclopedia. The content should be restored and unless any editor has a specific reason to the contrary -- not already refuted in that thread -- we should leave it alone. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems clear over the last 6-8 months that the information isn't desired in the article, and I'm leaning in that direction as well as mostly a small tempest in a teapot being included for questionable reasons, but if we opt to include it, it needs to be done without the Media Matters link. No one else noted that MMfA talked about it, and we can cover the alleged controversy without it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is that? Cite policy-based justification for your view. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a noted criticism unlike the others in the section, and it would violate NPOV as well as RS. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should not be included. However I think we should first explain what Sowell said before saying what the reaction was, including positive reaction in the echo chamber. And we should also note Sowell's comments that the Obama administration is fascist, and why he thinks that. TFD (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this the only reason for the article having a tag regarding a dispute over neutrality? If it is, I would argue that the tag needs to be removed, since it is not the article's neutrality being disputed but rather the neutrality of those wishing to include and/or exclude information regarding an opinion held, or once held, by T. Sowell. If this is the only disputed part of the article then the tag has no reason to be attached to the article, and I can only imagine that it is being used to promote the bias of the editor which placed it there, as it risks influencing neutral readers to disbelieve what they read here.

As for the dispute in question, the inclusion of the information regarding T. Sowell's opposition to the Obama administration is perfectly acceptable so long as it either relayed in its entirety or paraphrased in a manner that relays all pertinent information. Context is extremely important in this situation. Simply stating that T. Sowell called Obama a fascist and compared him to A. Hitler without talking about why is not acceptable. It is the role of encyclopedias and encyclopedic institutions such as Wikipedia to not only provide information as to "what" happened but to also provide the context as to "why" and "how" it happened.Execrated (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk page I mentioned in this edit comment is now here. I found Collect's arguments convincing, but not any of the arguments for carrying water for MMfA. (Note that here as always MMfA relies on deception and spin to discredit its targets.)

Moreover, Execrated is quite right to say that we would have to provide context, but the result would be considerable text about one overblown comparison — in other words, an imbalanced article, meaning an NPOV violation.

(BTW, IMO Sowell should have mentioned Mussolini instead of Hitler. What Obama did was classic fascism, not socialism, national or otherwise.) Cheers, CWC 13:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The facts I noted before are still true, and thus the material is ill-suited fir a BLP. Biographies are not the place to try scoring points against anyone at all. Collect (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy from 1981

Steeletrap (talk · contribs) recently removed the following paragraph from the end of the Critical reception section:

Patricia Roberts Harris, who was an official in the Carter Administration, once said that Sowell and Walter E. Williams "don't know what poverty is." Sowell called her position "a pathetic sign of intellectual bankruptcy," saying that he "was almost 9 years old before [he] lived in a home with [hot] running water" and that she "was a campus social leader in an 'exclusive sorority'—meaning that it was for middle-class (light-skinned) women" while he worked full-time and went to the same college at night.<ref>Sowell, Thomas (2007). A Man of Letters. San Francisco: Encounter Books. pp. 175–176. ISBN 978-1-59403-196-0.</ref>

Thanks, Steeletrap. (BTW, BLP does not apply to Ms Harris, who died in 1985. Also, Sowell is by no means suggesting that she was passing for white.)

You can read pages 173-176 of A Man of Letters [http://www.amazon.com/A-Man-Letters-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594031967/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406165928&sr=8-1 at Amazon.com]. Sowell is reporting a controversy from 1981, in which liberals (my term) such as Harris and Carl Rowan tried to discredit Sowell and Williams, saying they "have either forgotten our roots or never had any". In response, Sowell wrote that "many members of the black elite" "who lecture, write and consult on the subject" "know little or nothing about the ghetto". Later, the WaPo published an entire broadsheet page "devoted exclusively to denunciations of [Sowell] by Patricia Roberts Harris, columnist Carl Rowan and assorted others".

I think this dispute, while no longer significant in itself, is a good example of the many attempts to discredit Sowell (eg., by MMfA) and probably should be mentioned in the article. I suspect the dispute about who really can represent folks from the ghetto is also worth covering. On the other hand, we currently only have one source for this, and it is a primary source. What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversy really needs to be noted somewhere for it to be included. Sowell highlighting it in his book isn't really enough, as one would doubt it would be included without reason to benefit him in some way. If we went with every little issue that someone raised about Sowell, there wouldn't be room for much else. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. (To be specific: I no longer think this dispute "should be mentioned".) Cheers, CWC 09:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

social security

I recently applied for my social security benefits. I am 62 years old, joined the AF in 1971 and retired in 1993. I will receive my first check in January of 2015. I found out that a girl I grew up with in Illinois will receive not only her social security benefits but also 35% of her husbands. He will still receive his total benefits. She will be receiving about $100 less than me even though I worked from 1971 until 1993. How is that possible? She and her husband are receiving his benefits, her benefits plus an additional 35 percent of what his benefits are. Has Thomas Sowell ever done an article explaining how someone can work only a few years and only on holidays and receive her benefits and 35% of her husbands (her original benefits were something like $311 before the addition of her husbands benefits)? It almost seems ridiculous that I worked all of those years and she barely worked at all and is receiving almost as much as me. Everyone always talks about how the social security system might go broke. If the system works this way, paying familys more than they put in, I can see where the one of the flaws is. afretgirl–––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afretgirl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

AMID RACIAL STRIFE, WE SHOULD CONDISER FACTS

I was so happy to see your article on the editorial page of the SAN ANGELO STANDARD TIMES. I read each of your articles and save them, sending them to others. You have so much common sense. It is so refreshing to read the truth. I march to the same beat of your drummer! Mary Bartlett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.12.37 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

removed vandalism

I removed "white supremacist" from before Charles Murray's name. That is either inaccuracy or vandalism or both, and it is likely politically motivated and/or biased in origin. Some of his works are controversial but he has never espoused supremacist viewpoints. In addition to not ever arguing white supremacism, it would be hard to argue he somehow secretly holds that viewpoint considering he married a Thai woman and had two children with her.

Below is the exact edit, as it originally appeared under the section titled Reception, with the removed text struck through:

• "Sowell's 1987 book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles was laudingly reviewed by white supremacist Charles Murray eighteen years after publication for the American Enterprise Institute."

2601:204:8500:8EB0:498D:BC92:DB61:B2B3 (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is that really a picture of Thomas Sowell in 2008?

He looks really good for his age! 68.111.146.37 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No more likely around 1964. The image is from the Bell Telephone Magazine of Spring, 1964. It was archived/uploaded in 2008. I'll change the caption. – S. Rich (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

POV?

The "Reception" section seems unbalanced, it contains one small bit of criticism, and several long paragraphs lauding many of his books. I'm sure there must be more criticism of his work than what is currently given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.181.74 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2017‎

I agree, and have added a tag to that effect. I think a good effort was made towards balance, but it has missed the mark. The lengthy use of quotes creates a misleading impression. Three of these comments are from the National Review, a magazine which he himself was syndicated in, while others are mixed-in with only limited regard for due weight. The Cato Journal is not representative of the political or academic mainstreams, but is given more space than The Economist. Paul Johnson's opinion is a reasonable inclusion, but the source suggests that it might be a jacket blurb! Likewise the positive is always listed first, with the negative framed as a rebuttal. There are not appropriate approaches for a neutral article.

The first paragraph is especially bad. As a summary of the rest of the section it would be reasonable to try and handle it this way, but judged on its own, it cherry-picks the most flattering possible quotes devoid of all context or important attribution. The second one tries to rectify this somewhat, but the damage is done and pitting two perspectives against each other is false balance. We are presenting the positive aspects as being so vital that they don't even need context, while being dramatically more finicky with the critical commentary.

It's hard to know where to start, but it should be trimmed down. Instead of lengthy quotes selected by Wikipedia editors, summaries would be much better. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made a start, I hope! Please find more extensive details on the current talk page. Thanks! Lizziemander (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Sowell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110191859/http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8108 to http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8108

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

Currently it reads:

"Thomas Sowell (/soʊl/; born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, turned social theorist, political philosopher, and author."

The first sentence strikes me as odd for a few reasons:

1. I have never heard someone described as a "social theorist". The hyperlink points to the page for "Social criticism", which doesn't include any mention of "social theory" or "social theorists". I think this should either be "social critic" or the more common and perhaps more accurate in the case of Sowell "social scientist".
2. I don't think Sowell can accurately be called a political philosopher (or a political scientist). To the extent that he writes on politics, it's mostly through an economic lens.
3. The word "turned" here seems odd, as if he were an economist but decided to leave the field to pursue other areas and become an author.

I think the sentence should be something like:

"Thomas Sowell (/soʊl/; born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social scientist, popular commentator, and author."

--Rtdavis22 (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current introductory sentence is odd, however I would strike from your revised sentence "popular." Deciding that he is popular is biased and is an inference the reader ought make for themselves. This should be left to the reception section rather than the introduction. Other than this your replacement is suitable. Abeskull (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "popular" here is "suited to or intended for the general masses of people", as in the first sentence of Steven Pinker. Rtdavis22 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixing the flagged 'Reception' section (Updated!)

I edited the content in the 'Reception' category because it was flagged for multiple issues

• It reads like an advertisement (and it really does, especially when the author begins to interject their own arguments and counterpoints into the 'Criticism' section)
• There are too many/too lengthy quotations (both)
• The section might be too long to read or navigate comfortably (it is)

So I decided to do some clean up: retain the most salient points of long quotations, eliminate labels like liberal or conservative where it seemed less relevant (e.g. every person quoted in the Criticism section was credentialed as nothing but 'liberal this' and 'liberal that.' Their talking points were not pulled out as block quotes for easy reading, as they were in the Positive section.) A friend suggested I read about Sowell, and the flagged section seemed very correctly flagged.

I believe I've tightened up the quotes as much as possible without entirely losing their content and context. I've eliminated some "pot-shots" from quotes on both sides (they're not relevant to Sowell's work, just conservatives snarking at liberals and vice-versa.) All cut content is marked (appropriately, I hope) with ... and slight word changes to smooth those edits are [contained in brackets.] References have, of course, been preserved for those interested in reading the entire quote (and so much more!)

I've eliminated a contributor's self-interjected arguments and refutations (which were placed within the quotes) entirely.

I've given those quoted titles and/or credentials such as I could find, since some of them don't have wiki-pages.

One title some may have issue with (and I'm open to suggestions) is that of "R. Bastiat, Economics Editor of the now-defunct web publication iconoclast.ca." It's not a slam: R. Bastiat is the author of the extensive book review published by Cato Institute (ref. 55) I could only find iconoclast.ca on The Wayback Machine. Furthermore, I wanted to mark a distinction between iconoclast.ca and Iconoclast Literary Magazine. I couldn't find any other information on R. Bastiat searching the web.

Thank you! Lizziemander (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much for doing this. I believe I'm probably the one to have tagged the section. I explained my concerns back in October, but the talk archives were organized improperly for some reason, so you may have missed it. It's now at Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 4#POV?. Hopefully the archive issues should self-correct, as well. Thanks again. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Grayfell! I've done some more tweaking and updated the entry in the archives with the same info, for those watching that. I've brought my work up-to-date on this page, as well. And you're welcome. It hurts me to see anything FUBAR, anywhere XD Lizziemander (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The 'Reception' Section, Part Deux

As I delve further into correcting the 'Reception' section, I'm not sure it can be saved, and believe it should be eliminated or flagged LOLNO until it can be truly revised -- that is, re-researched and entirely re-written.

• The first 'Criticism' quote is from 1981, and the piece isn't critical in any way -- the word 'critical' appears in the quote. That's all.
• The second is from 1983. The date in the wiki reference is incorrect, making it appear contemporary (2015.) This criticism cites specific data which has doubtless changed.
• The third ('criticism') from 1984 ends, rather glowingly, with how important the work is to the national debate. Surely the national debate has changed since 1984?

Surely there's contemporary criticism which A) is contemporary and B) is actually critical?

The first 'Positive' quote was published in 1983 (I love the 80s, but c'mon.) It can't possibly be "illuminating the world as it is."

I'm assuming good faith, just squinting at sloppy work. I've already had to re-write the intro to the 'Criticism' section after finding one of the cited criticisms ("speaks about things in which he has no experience or training" -- something like that. That seemed like a red flag, for sure, that anyone would make that argument) wasn't in the source material, at all.

I can't research every source for context and comprehension.

I'm sorry to throw my hands up at this. :(

Gonna plant me a flag. --Lizziemander (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this book written by this Thomas Sowell?

It exist a book by an author called Thomas Sowell called - Fuzzy logic for 'just plain folks'. Is this book written by the economist Thomas Sowell. And if not by him who is this other Thomas Sowell guy. In my opinion he is the same guy, becouse he is familiar with mathematics but also because in his book readability and comprehensivnes were the top priority and this book its written for 'just plane folks'. I only managed to find out this source with the first 3 chapters of the book, but without more info for the author. http://t.bratsk.su/radio/fuzzy/fl_tutorial/Ch1.htm

The book is available on amazon, but I don't have 30$ to spear. But if its indeed written by Thomas Sowell I may buy it. Its sounds really funny. The author of the book is saying - "If intelligent life has appeared anywhere in the universe, "they" are probably using fuzzy logic. It is a universal principle and concept. Becoming aware of, defining and starting to use fuzzy logic is an important moment in the development of an intelligent civilization. On earth, we have just arrived at that important moment. You need to know and begin using fuzzy logic" And that's sounds instraging. But you cannot find it listet in his own website (may be he is not the author, or he is ashamed by the book, or it was a side project or idk)

If someone can help me thanks in advance :)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20505461-fuzzy-logic-for-just-plain-folks Yes, it is. Squatch347 (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead doesn't summarise the article, doesn't suggest that there is any criticism of his work

Anyone just reading the lead, and that's all a lot of people read, would assume he's universally accepted by his peers. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually came here to discuss the apparent white washing of this article after reading the utter WP:FRINGE nonsense about Einstein syndrome at Late talkers and was surprised there hasn't been any discussion here about this very slanted article and am disappointed Doug Weller's concerns have never been addressed. Praxidicae (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

POV Tag

This article has had the POV tag on it for a while with no direct action. Are there any editors here who have a list of specific edits they think are warranted or, at least, specific text that they feel isn't NPOV? If not, this tag should be removed according to the 2nd and 3rd criteria of the policy. Squatch347 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Will anyone ever do an article on his works?

Basic economics is, iirc, one of his most popular works. When will somebody create an article on that, with a summary and all that?--Impfireball (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Why don't you create that article? Sowell is not widely known. Perhaps you can change that. Harmswhims (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That really is not the purpose of Wikipedia, see our policy at WP:NOT - we are not here to promote things. And of course is something isn't well known it will be hard to find sources to meet our criteria at WP:NOTABILITY (books). Note that Impfireball never posted after the edit above. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I would be **very surprised** if Sowell's popular books fail to meet notability criteria here. I used WP:RSSE to locate some sources; would these qualify? [11][12][13][14] Harmswhims (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FORBESCON. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator article is written by Sowell. WP:IS are needed to establish notability. See WP:GNG. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Who says it isn't well known? Sowell has actually gained quite a wide following in recent years. Gd123lbp (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please bring RS coverage of one of his works then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

When you type "Basic Economics" into the google scholar search field, "Sowell" is the 4th recommendation. It's been cited 330 times. Searching for reviews might be a place to start. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

More recent picture available?

This one is 38 years old and so probably not very representative of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.99.105 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Found a photo of him from 2 years ago already uploaded in wikipedia. Gd123lbp (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that's a valid copyright. The user is claiming "own work", but I have sever doubts, so I'm reverting back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thankyou. Gd123lbp (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Last two sentences of the lead section

I consider this edit of mine to have been an improvement. Do you agree or disagree? AndrewOne (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Part of a series on Libertarianism in the United States"?

Are we sure we should have this on this page? Firstly, there are different types of libertarians (he is a conservative libertarian) and secondly, Sowell has criticised libertarianism as a stand alone political philosophy... He has quite nuanced views actually, he described himself as "perpetually bi-partisan" - if you can roll that off your tongue! I think this needs a re-think. He is not explicitly known for being a libertarian.

Also, under the; "Libertarianism in the United States" heading on the "theory" section it includes a list of political theories: Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Constitutionalism Fusionism Libertarian feminism Left-wing market anarchism Libertarian conservatismLibertarian paternalism Minarchism Libertarian transhumanism Panarchism Propertarianism Voluntaryism I am pretty sure Sowell would despise almost all of those concepts especially anarchism and of course... "left wing market anarchism..." he would just hate that! They don't give a good sense for Sowell's ideas at all! Gd123lbp (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Thomas Sowell cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in the "Race and ethnicity" section

"In Affirmative Action Around the World,[44]..." -- How is this sentence supposed to end? Rontrigger (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was removed sloppily because it is referenced using NewsMax:

In Affirmative Action Around the World, Sowell holds that affirmative action covers most of the American population, particularly women, and has long since ceased to favor blacks:

One of the few policies that can be said to harm virtually every group in a different way.… Obviously, whites and Asians lose out when you have preferential admission for black students or Hispanic students—but blacks and Hispanics lose out because what typically happens is the students who have all the credentials to succeed in college are admitted to colleges where the standards are so much higher that they fail.

References

Agreed. I've modified the text and updated the reference to the Washington Examiner. I'm also noticing a few other small errors I'll correct Squatch347 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

References

This is not an encyclopedia article

This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism. Much of the article consists of a lengthy bibliography of his writings, including short summaries, and links to those books' own wikipedia pages. The entire article needs a serious rewrite. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical that your intent is to improve the article rather than to gatekeep who is considered "reputable opinion." If you have some serious edits with reputable sources, we are happy to entertain them. I'll note that quite a bit of your criticism is already addressed in the article as is, including debates and criticism with other scholars. Squatch347 (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347:The archives suggest this has always been a problem with the article, and that a much broader reception section has been part of the article at one point, that still put too much emphasis on the praise Sowell got. Also, my intentions shouldn't matter if I'm correct.

I counted 23 of the 80 citations that appear to come from Sowell himself, and that's just the ones I noticed. I'm not even counting unreliable sources like Fox News, which are not allowed as per site policy. That alone should warrant a major overhaul of the article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Basic fallacy: "The archives suggest this has always been a problem with the article" pretty much every article about anyone who takes a political position gets a lot of comments about how the article should (take your pick) only say bad things about them / only say good things about them.

Also concerning is 46.97.170.112 telling bald-faced lies like "unreliable sources like Fox News, which are not allowed as per site policy". Per WP:FOXNEWS, "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science... There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

To say that I want this article to be only negative is a rather disingenuous statement when my criticism is that the article is not only 100% positive, it reads like self promotion. And you ignored my argument that 25 percent of the citations are primary sources written by the subject himself. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Guy Macon. Again, very happy to consider specific edits that; a) come with a reliable source and b) meet wiki policies like WP:RSP, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP. I think it is important that we are trying to maintain WP:NPOV and that wiki is not the place to grind an axe about perceived wrongs in the world [15] or debate issues WP:FORUM. Squatch347 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My whole point is about maintaining WP:NPOV, because this article is anything but neutral. Also, before asking for more reliable sources, maybe the article should be cleared of all primary sources and promotional material first. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

My whole point is that you are wrong, The article does present a NPOV and it is neutral. Your user contributions show a long history of you screaming at the sky about conservatives. This is just more of the same. I will tell you the same thing I recently told someone who was screaming at the sky over progressives; please go away and stop bothering those of us who want to create an encyclopedia with a real neutral point of view. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112, please stop. Your complaints here amount to whining which aren't going to get you anywhere. You're coming across as overwrought and almost hysterical. There isn't much criticism of Sowell out there because he is mostly ignored by everyone except conservatives and libertarians who tokenize him as one of the few black intellectuals who supports their views. On top of that, Sowell has made important contributions to left-wing thought, especially economic thought.

So even though I agree that he's (largely, but not entirely) an overeducated-yet-surprisingly-ignorant and self-righteous blowhard, there's simply no way we're adding our own critiques of him to this article. Full stop, never gonna happen. Read the rest of my comment for an example of how one actually starts a discussion of the sort you want to start.

@Guy Macon and Squatch347: Regardless of the IP's inability to communicate any real concerns, there are some identifiable problems with the article.

• Sowell has engaged in climate change denialism which is not mentioned at all, here. Guy, you should be aware of this as you provided two sources on this talk page. Here's some more:

• https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/03/15/global-warming-swindle-n1176180
• https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/thomas-sowell-90-indispensable-voice-more-relevant-than-ever/

• Reference 15 (http://biography.yourdictionary.com/thomas-sowell) is not reliable, and should be removed. The text has more than one citation, so it might not need to change (I haven't checked the second cite for verifiability).
• There is a critique of Sowell which I believe should be added to the reception section:

• https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/JAAHv91n4p459?journalCode=jaah

• The current Reception section needs work, as it appears to have been written to minimize critiques. There is an overview of the praise in the first paragraph, but the overview of critiques is relegated to the last sentence of the last paragraph.

Other than that, this is a rather well-written article. I think asking for it to be upgraded to A-class after fixing this might be appropriate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No problems with your suggested changes other than avoiding the loaded phrase "climate change denier". Like pro-life, pro-choice, freedom fighter, insurgent, etc. it is a non-neutral phrase invented to lead the reader to a particular conclusion. It is a universal pejorative meant to make you think of holocaust denial and is used to describe positions ranging from from "it's a giant conspiracy and all the scientists are liars" to "It's a real problem, but maybe increasing the size and power of government isn't the only possible answer" to "You know, nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. I'm just saying".

As for the IP, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#46.97.170.0/24. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, good to talk to you again.

-Agreed on the "yourdictionary" source. I don't even think that link works anymore and, as you pointed out, isn't necessary for the biographical point given the other source.(Removed)

-The Stewart article would make sense to add to the reception section. I don't have an account for that journal, is there an open source one we can use?

-Definitely open to adding something about Climate Change, as I noted with both previous IPs as well. My question, though, is what, specifically should we say? I think, given WP:BLP that we need to be careful to make sure that whatever Sowell's dissent is, that it is dissent from scientific consensus, rather than political consensus, a la Climate Change Denial. To that end, what specifically in the Townhall OPed would you suggest referencing here? (See Below).

Side note, I didn't see anything related in the NR article, did I miss it, or was there a different article?

-What do you propose as part of the Reception rewrite? I can see at least one quick change as part of reviewing it (Updated). I think it seems pretty balanced, but I'm open to their being additional content to add.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Stewart article would make sense to add to the reception section. I don't have an account for that journal, is there an open source one we can use? I have access to the full text, but was not able to find a non-paywalled version. I plan to do a write up, as I mention below.

Side note, I didn't see anything related in the NR article, did I miss it, or was there a different article? That's because I pasted the wrong link. I'm too lazy to find the right one now, and since I've already started a section on his climate change denial without it, I'll strike it.

What do you propose as part of the Reception rewrite? I can see at least one quick change as part of reviewing it (Updated). I think it seems pretty balanced, but I'm open to their being additional content to add. Nothing major, just characterizing both positive and negative in the first sentence and adding the Stewart piece. I'll do a re-write of the section later today, after which you and guy can alter it or revert and we'll discuss further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Stewart Article: Perfect, I'll stand by for your write up. Can you forward to an email or post to a limited time google drive so we can also review?

Ahh, yeah that makes a lot of sense. It does read currently as if one person wrote a pro paragraph and another person wrote an anti-paragraph. A mixed lede for that section and the addition would be fantastic, thanks.

Squatch347 (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've put it on google drive, here. Note that the links in it may not work, as I had to create the pdf myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing the reception section due to the critiques

First off sorry I got into a edit war with whoever edits this, I’m new to this. Anyway, my problem with the reception page is that the criticism involving wealth, poverty and politics should be not counted because sowell posted a rebuttal on townhall to his accusations which I feel definitely cleared things up. Also, Steven Pearlstein is not an academic, he’s a journalist whose primary job was to write reviews for the Washington post, which is fine, but the criticism part of the reception page was for criticism by academics, which he is not and he’s not even introduced. Hence I feel it would be appropriate to remove the critique that sowell rebutted in a successful manner and on top of that because Steven Pearlstein is not an academic, this is a columnist criticizing a book, while he is a great journalist I feel the strength of the criticisms was established that academics criticized him.

I also believe we need to introduce prof James b Stewart like the others in the criticism section, but I feel the criticism in the ones where he is praised seems kind of overkill as his critique is already expressed in the previous paragraph. Also, the quote actually seems more to create a more negative image of Sowell, as well as directly accuse him of something without his backup which could make the professor seem unreasonable, either way it seems like this article is trying with that quotation to influence the audience in some way and the way to do that is too describe the general critique of the book and link it to a reference, which was done in the previous paragraph.

• First, please sign your posts by placing four tildes (this thing: ~) after your post. That way we know who wrote what you wrote, and we can connect this comment in the talk page to the edits that you have made. Now, in terms of what people have written about Sowell, we don't delete them simply because he responded to those criticisms, except under very rare conditions (for example if his response was "I didn't write that, you have me confused with a different T. Sowell" or something like that). The basic idea is that of course someone will disagree with criticism, our job is to note that this criticism exists, especially where it is subjective criticism of his ideas and writings, especially where this is a person who is known primarily for his ideas and writings. Whether this creates a negative image of Sowell is immaterial, surely we don't have a responsibility to show Vlad the Impaler in a positive light, as an extreme example (granted, his response to critics was also likely worth covering). Now, there can be reasonable questions about which criticisms to include, which critics are relevant, but a book review published in one of the largest newspapers in the country (I have a subscription to the Washington Post, dunno if that qualifies as bias towards them) would arguably be noteworthy. It is important to understand that what matters is whether a critical source is relevant and given due weight, not whether it makes Sowell look good or bad. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, I just want you too know it’s not because I want to show Sowell in a positive light, I have looked a lot into the libertarian movement and see he has a lot more influence there than in the conservative movement, and I just felt that wasn’t fully represented from the academics listed as viewing his work positively, that’s all, apologies this got into an edit war. I’ll try my best to put all my recommendations in talk from now on. Thank you. 98.216.87.171 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

it’s not because I want to show Sowell in a positive light I think that would be a lot more believable if you weren't packing the section with praise and literally deleting all criticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

98.216.87.171 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) well I’m sorry but I don’t know how this works, and I did not delete the criticism after “packing the section with praise”, days ago I didn’t get the criticism but I didn’t understand what the talk chat was for and so I simply just deleted it because I thought my refutation was enough, which I was mistaken, and I was simply adding more academics who praised his work because I thought they were notable, I didn’t know I needed permission first, but don’t accuse me of things I didn’t do in a biased way.

References

Is there a reason there is no mention of his climate change denialism?

He is commonly quoted and referenced by anthropogenic climate change deniers seeking to justify their views, it seems strange that this aspect of the man is missing from this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.21.147 (talk • contribs) 08:32, April 23, 2021 (UTC)

Good Afternoon IP, do you have a source or reference to start that discussion? Squatch347 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Not denialism, scepticism.Gd123lbp (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Fact-Free Politics by Dr. Thomas Sowell
• Stormy Weather and Politics by Dr. Thomas Sowell

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this can help? I think this source (available to view here) can be used. It's a study by the American Behavioral Scientist authored by scholars that focus on climate change denial. Maybe the text can be attributed with the source if it can't stand alone. SlackingViceroy (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I could find nothing in that paper about Sowell, except an entry in a table detailing how often conservative authors discuss climate change. Am I missing something there? SaltySaltyTears (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That source has already been discussed below under the header #Climate Change Section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Climate Change Section

Moving so we don't lose the text.

Sowell has written several pieces in support of climate change denial. He has called global warming "hysteria" and falsely claimed that climate data does not support it. His writings on the subject generally approach it from a societal angle, claiming that there is no such thing as a "climate change denier" and accusing those who advocate for public policy changes to deal with climate change of both "... demonizing the opposition with catchwords..." and claimed that such changes would be "...crippling the American economy..."

References

He has gone so far as to call the notion of climate change a "swindle" and claim that it's only supported by scientists in order to secure funding.

I'll post some discussion in a minute. Squatch347 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

My biggest concern with this text, as written, is that it defacto treats any comment as "denial." Which I don't think is accurate. If a politician were to say "the world will literally end in 8 years" and someone were to question that, it isn't denial because that position isn't scientific consensus. IAW our own page on Climate Change Denial, this term specifically refers to those who are rejecting the scientific consensus on the issue including its impacts. Most of what Sowell writes in the sources attached are related to impacts, and I'm not sure I see where he diverges from consensus in this edit (not saying he doesn't, just that we would need to make that clear).

I think this language also misrepresents the source as coming across as far more absolute than the source warrants. For example, he didn't call global warming as an entire concept, hysteria; he is referencing some of the more overwrought predictions as hysterical.

Here is my proposed re-write absent sources for formatting.

Sowell has written several pieces related to climate change in which he has taken a skeptical view of some commentator's assessed impacts and has generally favored little to no governmental regulatory action in response. Sowell has expressed doubt that humans are significant contributors to climate change and that public funding has biased research in this field. Further, Sowell has stated that there is no such thing as a "climate change denier," arguing the term "... demoniz[es] the opposition with catchwords..."

Squatch347 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I like it. I would get rid of "intervention" and replace it with "government action" or some such. "Intervention" sort of implies that government is the only possible solution, whereas Sowell would obviously prefer a free-market solution. I would also not wikilink "doubt" to climate change denial. We should not call someone who writes things like "What is at issue is not whether there is 'climate change' — which nobody has ever denied" and "There is no question that the globe is warming" a "denier". Yes, he disagrees with the scientific consensus and we should document that but his disagreement is more nuanced than simply denying climate change. I would wikilink to Politics of climate change or Politicization of science instead as being more descriptive of Sowell's stated positions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the first. Made both changes, but I think there could be a case made for the wikilink. The sourced article does have him quote some scientists that are dissenting from the anthropogenic status of climate change, which (according to wiki's article) is the scientific consensus. Squatch347 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sowell's position is hardly "skepticism": he has made multiple demonstrably false statements about the climate data. I believe that characterizing his view as "skepticism" is both misleading and confusing, as Climate change skeptic redirects to climate change denial for much the same reason climate change proponents insisted upon using the latter term: we are long past the point of skepticism, and anyone critiquing climate change models is engaged in denialism not based on evidence.

Now on to respond to some specific complaints...

is that it defacto treats any comment as "denial." Please highlight any comment quoted or summarized in that section which is not denial of climate change, or part of a denial of climate change.

IAW our own page on Climate Change Denial, this term specifically refers to those who are rejecting the scientific consensus on the issue including its impacts That is the position Sowell has demonstrably taken.

Most of what Sowell writes in the sources attached are related to impacts, and I'm not sure I see where he diverges from consensus in this edit Did you miss the part where he called it "a swindle" and suggested that scientists only pretend to believe it because it helps them get funding?

I think this language also misrepresents the source as coming across as far more absolute than the source warrants. Find me a quote from any of those sources where he acknowledges that he may be wrong, or even hints at such an acknowledgement.

For example, he didn't call global warming as an entire concept, hysteria; he is referencing some of the more overwrought predictions as hysterical. This is flatly wrong. Here is the full quote: Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear any similar apologies from those who have been promoting "global warming" hysteria for years.

Note that Sowell never once cites any actual data or arguments to support his explicit view that climate change is a "swindle". He never once presents any data or quotes any scientist who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus. In fact, Sowell at no point allows for any interpretation of the issue other than "anyone who believes in climate change is lying for personal gain, and an idiot to boot."

Not gonna lie, the discussion here prior to this edit is going a long ways towards supporting the IP's claims of whitewashing. I am not at all okay with the proposed re-write, and find it to be a rather blatant violation of NPOV. Climate change is a fact as far as WP is concerned, and any "skepticism" should be properly described as "denialism" and we should not be excluding quotes from Sowell on the basis that they make him look bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

He has made multiple demonstrably false statements about the climate data. Ok, let's present those quotes and we can include them. If we are going to lump him into someone who is denying the scientific consensus, I think we are obligated under WP:BLP to highlight what he has said and how the scientific consensus disagrees with that statement.

Please highlight any comment quoted or summarized in that section which is not denial of climate change, or part of a denial of climate change. I think the best resolution of this discussion might for us to talk a little about the framing of what is denial of climate change. As noted in Wiki's own article, that doesn't mean disagreeing with any possible claim about climate change.

Let me ask this, as a hopefully illustrative example, if we had a quote of Sowell saying "a politician who says the world will end in 12 years is wrong;" is that Climate Change Denial?

I would argue no, because there is no scientific consensus that the world will end in 12 years. That is a hyperbolic claim that is out of line with the scientific position.

It is that distinction I want to explore before lumping Sowell into that category. Is he referencing some of the hyperbolic claims (and given that he is generally focused on the policy world where those kinds of claims are more common, I think there is a presumption that that is the case) or is he referring to the scientific positions as outlined in Climate change denial?

Now, on the other hand, if he were saying something like "CO2 is not actually increasing."[16] That is clearly in contradiction to the established consensus as highlighted in our article.

Climate change is a fact as far as WP is concerned, and any "skepticism" should be properly described as "denialism" No argument here. But we need to avoid an equivocation fallacy. When WP says climate change, it means something very specific, and disagreeing with someone who uses the term incorrectly is not the same thing as disagreeing with someone who uses it correctly. I'm not saying that Sowell is doing that, but this is a WP:BLP and with that comes some due diligence requirements to make sure he isn't.

Squatch347 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's present those quotes and we can include them. If we are going to lump him into someone who is denying the scientific consensus, I think we are obligated under WP:BLP to highlight what he has said and how the scientific consensus disagrees with that statement. I disagree with your reading of WP:BLP, there. I believe that going through his false claims one by one and presenting scientific rebuttals is arguably WP:OR as Sowell is largely ignored by climate scientists (though I admit that interpretation is not rock solid), and would bloat the section out while painting an overly negative view of Sowell. Doing that would, I believe, be a massive overcorrection.

I think the best resolution of this discussion might for us to talk a little about the framing of what is denial of climate change. As noted in Wiki's own article, that doesn't mean disagreeing with any possible claim about climate change. I agree. However, I'm fairly certain that calling it "hysteria" and a "swindle" constitutes denialism.

It is that distinction I want to explore before lumping Sowell into that category. With all due respect: You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between denialism and skepticism. Skepticism is doubt informed by experience and evidence. Sowell goes so far as to tell what are either bald-faced lies about the evidence, or to display his own near-complete ignorance of what the evidence is.

In the 1970's and 1980's, it would be fair to refer to many who denied anthropogenic climate change as "skeptics" because the data was more ambiguous. But from the mid-90's, the amount of data has exploded, which resulted in a massive downswing in its ambiguity. This is why "denialism" is the term preferred by experts, which is why "denialism" is the term preferred by WP.

Failure to follow that precedent on this article really then only has one rationale: whitewashing, or to put it in more Wikijargon terms, lending undue weight to a fringe view.

No argument here. But we need to avoid an equivocation fallacy. When WP says climate change, it means something very specific, and disagreeing with someone who uses the term incorrectly is not the same thing as disagreeing with someone who uses it correctly. I'm not saying that Sowell is doing that, but this is a WP:BLP and with that comes some due diligence requirements to make sure he isn't. So the crux of what you're saying seems to be that you believe it's arguable (or true) that Sowell is arguing against making policy decisions informed by the scientific consensus on climate change. If that's not correct, please let me know.

To that point, I would say that the quotes presented in my edit and in my earlier comment here lay that argument to rest. He's referred to climate change as "hysteria," falsely claimed that there's no data supporting it (multiple times) and called it a "swindle". He's rather clearly rejecting the scientific consensus.

On top of that, consider how incredibly illogical the position of advocating that we not make any policy changes as a result of climate change is. It's akin to advocating that cancer patients avoid treatment because "..." Notice that blank quote. Sowell, at no point, ever presents an argument that supports not making policy changes in spite of the reality of climate change.

So I don't think there's any distinction to be made, here. Sowell does in fact argue against the scientific consensus, and his arguments wrt policy are rooted in that, with no other basis.

Now, I'm open to changes to my edit. I particularly liked how you changed the use of the "demonizing" quote. But the actual proposed edit you gave above is wholly unacceptable to me. Here's another proposal which I'm okay with:

Sowell has written several pieces in support of climate change denial and has generally favored little to no governmental regulatory action in response.. He has referred to global warming as "hysteria" and a "swindle" and falsely claimed that climate data does not support it. Sowell has expressed doubt that humans are significant contributors to climate change and that public funding has biased research in this field. Further, Sowell has stated that there is no such thing as a "climate change denier," arguing the term "... demoniz[es] the opposition with catchwords..."

If you feel that is still too condemnatory, I'm okay with removing the "swindle" reference and the source supporting it, as I believe that any reasonable reader could probably intuit that he's said as much from reading the rest of the paragraph. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I prefer Squatch347's version. I suspect that we will need more than three editors to determine consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of WP:BLP, there. I believe that going through his false claims one by one and presenting scientific rebuttals is arguably WP:OR as Sowell is largely ignored by climate scientists (though I admit that interpretation is not rock solid) Sorry, I should clarify, I don't think we necessarily need a comprehensive list of quotes and then papers in the article, I agree that that would be bloat. More, I'm asking if you could elaborate on what specific things he has said that you feel disagreed with the scientific consensus.

However, I'm fairly certain that calling it "hysteria" and a "swindle" constitutes denialism.Referencing Guy's point I think we may just be reading the sentence differently. If I understand you correctly, you read it as Global Warming=Hysteria. I interpret that sentence more as "There is some hysteria that has been attached to global warming (ie world ends in 12 years kind of talk)." Or perhaps to frame it differently, you might read it as "all talk about Global Warming is hysteria" and we might read it as "some talk about Global Warming is hysteria."

You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between denialism and skepticism. I'm sorry if I haven't presented my case more clearly, I don't mean to draw that distinction. Rather, what I'm saying is that criticism of some people's reaction to a real phenomenon is not necessarily criticism of the phenomenon. IE I can be critical of the Day After Tomorrow's depiction of climate change while also completely accepting the IPCC's observations and predictions.

Sowell goes so far as to tell what are either bald-faced lies about the evidence, or to display his own near-complete ignorance of what the evidence is. Such as? Do you have a specific quote that is either of those things related to the scientific consensus?

So the crux of what you're saying seems to be that you believe it's arguable (or true) that Sowell is arguing against making policy decisions informed by the scientific consensus on climate change. If that's not correct, please let me know. No, again sorry I haven't been more clear. I mean that not everyone who says the phrase "Climate Change" necessarily means the same thing. The impacts, as defined by the IPCC are not the same impacts that some politicians or pundits imply. Sorry if I use too my analogies, I think they help clarify some times. A politician who says "Climate Change endangers every living thing on the planet" is not using that term correctly according to our own article [17]. Being critical of that politician's statement is not the same thing as being critical of the consensus or actual impacts of climate change. Or, to be even more over the top, if I were to say "Climate Change will mean the median temperature in the use is 220C in 2100" I wouldn't be referring to the scientific consensus, but rather a separate view of what climate change is (and happens to be wrong). Critiquing my statement would not be denial of Climate Change even if it is, strictly speaking, denying what I am saying is climate change. Does that help clarify what I'm trying to get at?

I honestly don't think we are that far from a good edit, I just want tighten up exactly what we mean in that first two sentences. Squatch347 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

More, I'm asking if you could elaborate on what specific things he has said that you feel disagreed with the scientific consensus. Haven't I been doing exactly that? I mean, my original edit was to literally point out several such things, and you quoted it here.

I interpret that sentence more as "There is some hysteria that has been attached to global warming (ie world ends in 12 years kind of talk)." You're, quite expressly, putting words in his mouth (words which run against the grain of his writings on the subject, no less) to get to that interpretation. One cannot read "Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear any similar apologies from those who have been promoting "global warming" hysteria for years," and conclude that he's actually referring only to a specific subset of global warming proponents unless Sowell says or strongly implies that's the case. He does nothing of the sort. And it completely ignores Sowell's entire piece about it being a "swindle". The entire thesis of that article is denialism. I mean, what do you think his use of scare quotes was for?

Rather, what I'm saying is that criticism of some people's reaction to a real phenomenon is not necessarily criticism of the phenomenon. Oh come on... I just wrote three paragraphs addressing exactly this, which you haven't responded to at all.

Such as? Do you have a specific quote that is either of those things related to the scientific consensus? The "No data" quote is (easily) demonstrably false. It is one or both of those things, without question. This is the fourth time I've answered this question.

No, again sorry I haven't been more clear. I mean that not everyone who says the phrase "Climate Change" necessarily means the same thing. You keep comparing Sowell's critiques of "climate change" and "global warming" to critiques of specific false claims based in misunderstandings of climate change, except no such claims are evident. Unless you can point to where he is specifically responding to such specific false claims, your analogies are completely inapplicable.

In any case, I've asked for more input at WP:FTN, per Guy's suggestion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The "No data" quote is (easily) demonstrably false. It is one or both of those things, without question. This is the fourth time I've answered this question. I should have mentioned this last time. Note that we are discussing opposition to the scientific consensus. That is the flavor the WP denialism article. Arguing that there are grifters or that policy changes are bad ideas isn't arguing against the scientific consensus. There isn't a scientific consensus on carbon taxes, those are political questions. There is a scientific consensus on warming, human impact, and the effects. There is scientific consensus on the impact of certain policy proposals even. But those are the same thing as a scientific consensus on policy questions. Scientists address science, not policy.

The data quote would be a good addition, but I'm not sure I see a specific quote, just your reference to it. Looking through the sources, the closest I could find was a reference to their being data that didn't fit climate models. Which, when written, wasn't exactly controversial. I don't see a reference that supports there is "no data for climate change."

Unless you can point to where he is specifically responding to such specific false claims, your analogies are completely inapplicable. I'm sorry, I think the burden lies on you here. You are saying that he has made specific claims that are verifiably at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change. I'm asking what those claims are. Where is the reference where he makes a claim that disagrees with Climate Change?

One last thing to put on here. We should strike the Townhall article IAW WP:RS AGE, this article was written in 2007 and is referring to the models and data at that point, not the consensus now. Even our page in 2007 would be considered denial compared to now [18]. Squatch347 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec)The data quote would be a good addition, but I'm not sure I see a specific quote, "Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear any similar apologies from those who have been promoting "global warming" hysteria for years, in defiance of data that fail to fit their climate models." In the future, it would benefit you to read the sources before getting into an argument about what the sources say. This is the fourth sentence in the first source.

Also see "There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today."

And there's the stuff I haven't bothered with, like claiming that the whole idea of climate change was "manufactured by intellectuals"

...Or repeating that long-since debunked canard about global "cooling" in the 70's.

Arguing that there are grifters or that policy changes are bad ideas isn't arguing against the scientific consensus. Please explain to me with even a hint of seriousness and integrity how a failure to adapt current policy norms to a future which is being inexorably altered by climate change is anything but suicidal, misanthropic lunacy. This level of pedantry in this argument is, frankly, shocking, and it is beneath the dignity of anyone who has any business discussing this topic to make it. If one is arguing that we should not do anything about climate change, then one is either denying climate change, or denying the importance of doing what it best for humanity.

I'm sorry, I think the burden lies on you here. You are quickly approaching the point at which WP:PACT comes into play and I start ignoring you for sealioning. Sowell is, quite obviously and demonstrably, not responding to specific arguments in any of these pieces, and the suggestion that he is would be easily provable, were it true. To suggest otherwise is unmitigated bullshit, and to suggest that I should somehow be required to prove that he's not responding to specific policy suggestions is irrational bullshit.

One last thing to put on here. We should strike the Townhall article IAW WP:RSAGE, this article was written in 2007 and is referring to the models and data at that point, not the consensus now. Even our page in 2007 would be considered denial compared to now. You should really check the page before you make such an easily disproven claim as that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mjolnir mentioned this at the Fringe noticeboard, asking for uninvolved editors to comment. After reading through one of Sowell's essays, I can see why there is some disagreement. Sowell makes several statements that are objectively and provably false, such as when he says What is at issue is not whether there is "climate change" — which nobody has ever denied — but whether the specific predictions of the "global warming" crowd as to the direction and magnitude of worldwide temperature changes are holding up over the years. My understanding is that there is widespread consensus that the Earth's mean global surface temperature is increasing, has increased year after year, and had been predicted to continue to increase, and that those predictions have so far been correct within the relative margin of error.

  But he goes on to make a number of statements that show an incredible level of misunderstanding and ignorance. He appears to confuse global mean surface temperatures with the temperature at a given spot on the planet's surface at a given time. He confuses seasons and weather with climate. He talks about meteorologists, who are not even the sort of scientist he thinks he's refuting! I mean, this paragraph sums up everything that is wrong about the essay: Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why then should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?.

  Is he a climate change denier? I don't know, you can make a case that the label overstates his understanding of the subject. On the other hand, if we have someone who makes statements along the lines of "I didn't evolve from a monkey" and "I've never seen a fish evolve into a bird", those statements are truthful, ignorant, not technically creationist, but we'd probably have no problem describing such a person as an evolution denialist. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sowell is almost certainly wrong, but he is not stupid, and you should be suspicious when you think you have discovered trivial errors that a first year student would not make.

Re: "those predictions have so far been correct", No. They have not. While the evidence for warming is overwhelming, the evidence of reliability of the various computer models is far less compelling.

• "One systematic bias revealed in the evaluation of CMIP5 models was the apparent difference between the observed and modeled global mean surface temperature increase in the early twenty-first century"[19]
• "The models often used to inform adaptation decisions; global coupled atmosphere ocean general circulation models (GCMs), potentially downscaled with regional climate models (RCMs) have horizontal resolutions often far coarser than those demanded, and suffer from substantial biases. To reduce biases and to overcome the scale gap between the numerical model grid and the desired scale, climate model output is almost routinely post-processed by bias correction (often called bias adjustment) methods... Even though bias correction is often considered a necessary step in climate impact modelling, the approach is prone to misuse, and best practice still needs to be established. Some authors even question the very basis of bias correction... We define a bias as the systematic difference between a modeled property of the climate system and the corresponding real property.[20]
• "Despite considerable progress in recent years, output of both global and regional circulation models is still afflicted with biases to a degree that precludes its direct use, especially in climate change impact studies. This is well known, and to overcome this problem, bias correction; i.e. the correction of model output towards observations in a post-processing step) has now become a standard procedure in climate change impact studies. In this paper we argue that bias correction is currently often used in an invalid way"[21]

Many people fall into the trap of assuming that just because the evidence of global warming is strong that this means that the computer models accurately predict the future. They don't. The strongest argument -- and it is a good one -- is based upon actual data, and the completely anodyne assumption that past trends will most likely continue into the future.

Re: "He appears to confuse global mean surface temperatures with the temperature at a given spot on the planet's surface at a given time. He confuses seasons and weather with climate", This is nonsense. That was clearly an analogy, and a good one. Cherry picking such as only talking about record highs instead of average temperatures really are invalid.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sowell is almost certainly wrong, but he is not stupid, and you should be suspicious when you think you have discovered trivial errors that a first year student would not make. Sowell is as entirely uneducated in climate science as my 12 year old, and far more ideological wedded to a group that consistently (and often stupidly) denies climate science. His expertise in economics does not, in any way, translate to an expertise in climate science. I have seen equally educated men make far larger asses of themselves when stepping outside the bounds of their expertise.

Re: "those predictions have so far been correct", No. They have not. Well, that depends entirely on which models you're referring to, now doesn't it?

The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. ... The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. Note that almost all of those models had been made before the earliest work cited here. Some failed, most didn't. Also note that Sowell never specifies which models he's referring to, but implies that he means "all of them".

Also... Guy... I urge you to take another look at those articles. I can't tell from what you're saying whether or not you understand that the bias in question is statistical bias, not political bias, but all of those articles are about improving the accuracy of the models, and none of them ever come to anything even resembling the conclusion that any climate models have "failed".

In fact, I can't imagine how one could consider those articles to be evidence of the failure of climate models unless one started with the assumption that anything short of perfection was failure.

This is nonsense. That was clearly an analogy, and a good one. Umm, that doesn't read at all like an analogy to me, or obviously, to Hyperion. In fact, one would question the intelligence of a climate change denier analogizing climate to weather, given their extremely-well-known habit of mistaking the one for the other in public discourse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The article should not mention his anti-climate-science stance, since there are no reliable sources covering it. The usual way these things are handled here is:

1. famous person says stupid thing about something they do not understand
2. Internet loonosphere agrees with person
3. reliable sources ignore it
4. Wikipedia ignores it

Unless item 3 changes, we cannot do anything about item 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition: The problem is that without reliable sources drawing attention to Sowell's ignorance and the demonstrable falsity of his remarks, we cannot call him out since that would be WP:OR. Adding the science position from sources that do not mention Sowell would be WP:SYNTH. And letting his remarks stand without refutation would violate WP:FRINGE. Also, WP:PRIMARY would not like it. So, I cannot see any solution except: keep it out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, exactly this. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thinking about the above, what if the situation were reversed? How would we cover it if:

1. A world renowned climate scientist says something stupid about economics, mixed in with some opinion/commentary about how they think that other unnamed persons are completely wrong about economics.
2. The Usual Internet Echo Chamber enthusiastically agrees with the climate scientist.
3. Reliable sources ignore the climate scientist's opinion about economics.
4. Wikipedia has an existing page about the climate scientist's conclusions regarding climate science, but nothing on their economic opinions.
5. Someone shows up on the article talk page and insists that we have to highlight the climate scientist's stupidity.

So, what would we do? Well, if history is any indication, we would make it so that 75% of the climate scientist's BLP was about his opinion regarding the baggage retrieval system they have at Heathrow.[22] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that someone has no reliable source, that's his own problem then. No arms, no cookies. That baggage retrieval thing seems to be an independent subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

First off, that bit about 75% of his BLP is nonsense and you damn well know it. But if said climate scientists kept writing article after article after article and just wouldn't shut up about it then yeah, we should cover it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He's explicitly included in a list of climate change denialists published in American Behavioral Scientist (abstract) (full text) (alt full text). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They write about the "conservative “echo chamber”", "a crucial element of the climate change denial machine". We should use what they say, not what Sowell himself says. Or in addition to it when they refute his points. Unfortunately, he is only mentioned as one data point in a table, but that should not be a big problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the article is literally called "Leading Voices in the Denier Choir", and this is not some clickbaity headline, but a peer-reviewed article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, a whole section might just be WP:UNDUE here. At his core, his writings pin him as an economist and social theorist, and I'm not sure that it's due to include that he is a climate denialit if we are basing our secondary-source description from a single journal article. It'd be like expounding upon his theological views or his views on religious freedom; he's written about them but they also aren't really all that relevant to what makes him notable, and I'm not sure they're worthy of inclusion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

His climate change stuff has been extremely prolific and very widely distributed in climate change denialist circles. Most non-conservatives have ignored his writings on the subject (as they have mostly ignored his writings on just about anything but economics). To not mention it at all (as is the current state) would be to deprive the reader of any information about something he's very widely known for. I mean, he made a peer-reviewed list of of the "leading voices" in denialism in a behavioral science journal. That's no small feat. I think he's ignored in the press mostly because his writings on the subject are little better than the sort of crap one would expect from Uncle Jim-Bob who still insists the election was stolen.

As far as having a whole (sub)section goes, back in 2018, there used to be a subsection called "other writings". I'd be happy to condense some of the lesser topics in "Writings and thought" down to that again, with a mention of his denialism in there. The quantity of text written in my original edit and the proposal above (and a third on my talk page which Squatch347 has endorsed) were merely meant to fill out a subsection. But honestly, the "late talking" subsection could be trimmed and moved to "other writings" along with the second paragraph from the top of the "writings and thought" section, and the "Trump" subsection moved to the "Politics". Then, it would only take a sentence or two to fit the denialism in there without it being entirely unbalanced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• The man has written over 50 books, over 30 book reviews, and about 100 essays or scholarly articles, and not one has been on climate change or global warming[23]. He was one of the top syndicated columnists in the nation and probably has written thousands of articles in his lifetime. And according to your source, in a four-year time frame, he wrote a total of seven articles on climate change. At that rate, he wrote 1-2 articles per year on climate change. Wholly WP:UNDUE. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  A normal person who knows where the limits of their expertise are writes zero articles denying climate change per year. Seen from a climate science misinformation standpoint, he seems to be a top supplier of it. Yes, he does other stuff more, but this seems noteworthy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, we can't control what people write about. From a climate science misinformation standpoint, men like Myron Ebell or Marc Morano are the top suppliers of climate change denialism--as extensively documented in third-party sources. Sowell, on the other hand, is not a top supplier of misinformation and is notable due to his work on economics & race. Climate change is something he hardly writes about. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Seven articles is not "hardly", and we have a source analyzing his and other people's output in that area. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I am in agreement with Dr. Swag Lord: "The man has written over 50 books, over 30 book reviews, and about 100 essays or scholarly articles, and not one has been on climate change or global warming. He was one of the top syndicated columnists in the nation and probably has written thousands of articles in his lifetime." Focusing in on one subject that he rarely touches upon is clearly WP:UNDUE. Where are the high-quality sources that discuss his position on climate change at length? Where is the evidence that anyone cares about what an economist thinks about climate science? And no, a paper that lists every conservative commentator who has ever touched on the subject mentioning him is passing does not count. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  By my count he has written 1889 pieces for Jewish World Review and so far I have only found 2 about climate change. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  There are 9 linked in this section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nice. That comprises a solid 0.48% of all his columns. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Please show me the policy page that gives the precise percentage of a prolific writer's output that needs to be met. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  There is no "precise percentage," but all of your concerns should be answered here: WP:BALASP :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Dr. Swag Lord is correct. WP:BALASP says

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

I am seeing zero examples of any reliable, published material on the subject of Sowell's opinion on climate change other than the one mention is passing in a paper that listed every conservative commentator who has written on the subject. Do a Google search on "Thomas Sowell" "climate change" (with the quotes). Plenty of mentions by unreliable blogs, plenty of sources that publish every column Sowell writes, but no reliable sources that discuss the topic other than in passing. This is why we have our WP:WEIGHT policy; to avoid having someone who wants to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS searching through Sowell's thousands of columns for mention of their favorite hobbyhorse and and then writing a Wikipedia section based upon primary sources when no reliable source has indicated that they consider Sowell's opinion on climate change to be any more significant than a climatologist's opinion on economics. It's nothing more that a WP:COATRACK. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, because three sentences is far too much weight to give to a sentiment this guy went out of his way to write in multiple articles that were widely reprinted in dozens of sources and earned him the designation of being a "leading voice in climate change denial" in a paper that multiple behavioral scientists reviewed and said "Yeah, that fits." In case you can't detect the sarcasm, I assure you that it's there.

  But you know what? I don't really even care any more. I can easily handle one POV pusher with a bunch of bad arguments. But I haven't got the slightest interest in fending off multiple POV pushers, each one with their own pet bad argument. Have fun. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have come to the conclusion that, although Sowell is clearly an ignorant anti-climate-science agitator motivated by an unrealistic economic belief system, he does not stand out enough in the giant herd of ignorant anti-climate-science agitators motivated by the same unrealistic economic belief system who copy and paste bad reasoning from each other all the time. One single reliable source has noticed him being a part of the choir and singing along with the others, and only lists him together with the others, but that is not enough to make him notable as a Wikipedia-approved cog in the denial machine. He did not even invent new bad reasoning, as far as we know. If we had articles about individual sheep, there would be no need for writing in each of them "this specific sheep often says baa".

  I don't think a user needs to be a POV pusher to oppose the inclusion of that material. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's a pretty rational analysis. I can agree with that. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you found any 3rd party sources on his views on climate change? All I can see from this conversation is just articles by Sowell himself...? Rather suggests its not worthy of inclusion if you cant find any good 3rd party sources on this. Squatch347 - Gd123lbp (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Observer Comment The use of the perjorative word denialism—used in this debate in place of his simply stated skepticism—along with the consistant bludgeoning above regarding a desire to include non-cited to barely-cited climate change opinions of Sowell, seems to indicate that the debate is not happening here to build an encyclopedia, but in an attempt to right great wrongs, whatever these may be. Science by consensus is not science, it's indoctrination. This debate should be closed with no change to the status quo except as was originally proposed by Squatch347 above (and only then in light of that which is reliably sourced), before this conversation took a wrong turn into fantasyland. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The debate was alreday over when you posted this. (Which is why I notice it only now.)

Science by consensus is not science, it's indoctrination Bullshit. Climatology is done like any other real science. The periodic table is consensus too. It's just that chemists do not have to point it out all the time because they never have to fight any anti-science loons who contest it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Praise

The fact that Sowell is well-received is not in dispute, and it does not require that all criticism of his writings be removed, nor that every single person who's written a positive review be listed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy who added more: I included those people because I believed the praise part is not that expansive to how influential he has been, there were very few libertarians, heterodox economists and historians, which some would say he has had the most influence in (more so for libertarians and heterodox economists than historians), and I wanted to showcase that. Sorry I keep editing, I thought it was appreciated if someone expanded a section, and I don’t know entirely how this works, but I just want to make a solid contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 (talk • contribs)

IP editor: That similarly-aligned academics and institutions praise Sowell for saying things that they already believe is neither remarkable nor necessary. The entire basis of US economic policy has shifted towards libertarian ideals instead of interventionist ones over the last fifty years so the rarity argument simply doesn't wash, either. The praise is WP:UNDUE and you must not edit-war to force your ideas into any article, including this one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

98.216.87.171 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC) What do you have against me? I'm not trying to force my views I simply added people who praised him, nothing more and I carefully selected them to ones who are also influential to show their significance. Nothing about this is imposing my views, if that was the case I would have erased everything and wrote my own interpretation which I did not do, please chill out man I only want to help edit and update.

I do not, in point of fact, have anything against you. I don't know you so it would be ludicrous to project any personality upon your IP address worth having any sort of feelings towards. I do have strong feelings about edit wars and those who continue them when asked to stop, which is exactly what you were doing. Edit wars are always attempts to force a view into an article, even if they are backed by citations. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can add anything they want at any time in any way despite other editors' objections." If you honestly want to help edit and update, please start by reading each of the Core Content Policies and the Policy on Connsensus. You may find both helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to add something to Eggishorn's comment, since the IP editor appears to be new. The edit itself is simply a matter for us to discuss, maybe someone else comes along and makes a good argument for putting your edit back in, maybe someone suggests a better version or an acceptable compromise. When people talk about "edit warring", what they mean is that the edit was added, then reverted, then added again, and then when it was reverted there was an edit note saying that you should discuss this on the talk page. At that point if you had discussed this on the talk page it would have ebeen better. What makes it edit warring was adding the same edit back a third time, after someone had explicitly asked you to discuss it on the talk page first. You're new, you may not have understood what they meant, these things happen. But for future reference, when someone reverts and edit, it's best to discuss it on the talk page. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

98.216.87.171 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Thank you Hyperion35, that was helpful.

Sowell is not 'well-received' among his fellow economists at all. He is rarely published and is not frequently cited by other economists and is not respected as an economist. He is respected as an explainer of basic economic concepts to children and as a popularizer of economics. This wiki article is unusual in that there is no 'criticism' section on Sowell, but there is on virtually everybody else who has a longer write-up. It's certainly not like there aren't many areas in which Sowell has been criticized.

From another perspective, I also find it odd that wikipedia won't publish any science that isn't mainstream, even paranormal claims that have some legitimate evidence behind them, but has no problem with loony ideas from heterodox economists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.140.177 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that the whole field has not reached the stage where you can make out anything that is definitely confirmed. Anyway, if you have any reliable sources criticizing him, bring them.

There is no legitimate evidence behind any paranormal claims. If you still find any, go ask at that relevant Talk page to learn why it isn't.

Also, learn how to WP:SIGN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

How about a contributions section?

I like the idea of a contributions section, especially for scientists (social scientists or natural scientists), because it can show their key contributions without having to first read through everything. What you think?

Go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Conversion of Thomas Sowell

Nice biographical article in Reason.[24] Lots of stuff we can use. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Change of Picture

The picture used must be quite old; that sort of picture would more be appropriate if the subject was deceased. I suggest we use a more up-to-date picture of him? HelpfulPi (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You would have to find a picture with an appropriate license and upload it. Here are the available choices right now: [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=thomas+sowell&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image ] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Thomas Sowell cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Critical opinion of Donald Trump

This opinion piece by Thomas Sowell about Donald Trump expresses critical views that are not yet reflected in the current version of this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The "Donald Trump" subsection contained nothing about Sowell ever being critical about Trump. I went ahead and added a sentence about the opinion piece you cited to that subsection. Le Marteau (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of Sowell's climate change denial

We have reached 3RR. Time to end this revert war and take it to the talk page. The ham-handed distortion of Sowell's positions on climate change does not belong in Wikipedia.

Sowell denies that there is a need to address climate change (h/t @Le Marteaufor fixing that) and he impugns the motives of the people studying the matter. That's his position. There are ample quotes from his writings and the interview on public intellectuals to support it. The IP editor keeps reverting out the very core of Sowell's position.

There are three threads that the IP editor wants to add in its place:

• Sowell sometimes says: the climate is always changing, it was changing before humans came along. But almost all climate deniers say that. It is a dumb throw-away remark.

Including this in the article could be OK, but doesn't tell us very much. Do not use it to replace the money quotes.

• A quote from a letter-to-the-editor by some non-notable citizen reader of a small town newspaper saying Sowell isn't an expert.

I'm not sure how it ever got into Wikipedia.

• Sowell repeats assertions of assorted scientists (Michaels, Lindzen, Singer). This is astonishingly misleading. First, Sowell tells us he is merely repeating what they say. Second, Sowell repeats denialist work that has been thoroughly discredited in the climate science community.

If we want to include that material in the article, a better description would be Sowell refers to the discredited work of well-known climate-change denier scientists in order to support his position. (Of course that isn't encylopedia language.) But I don't see much reason for including this material.

The IP editor's version makes Sowell seem like he has no opinions on climate change except what he hears from distinguished scientists, buttressed by a utterly non-notable person explaining that anyways Sowell isn't an expert. It completely whitewashes his position.

I further note the IP editor's version isn't enhanced by characterizing Sowell's syndicated column in terms such as "argued in the newspaper Kitap Sun" and by inserting the non-notable letter-to-the-editor. -- M.boli (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. See Talk:Thomas_Sowell/Archive_4#Climate_Change_Section. Back then, we did not have any third-party sources that refute Sowell's position on this and explicitly mention him. We cannot use sources that just say what he believes because of WP:FRINGE. So we just deleted his fringe position. See also Talk:Alexander Gorodnitsky. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You raise an important issue and thanks for the heads up... I'm embarassed I needed to be reminded of WP:PRIMARY. The current sourcing for the entire first paragraph under "Climate Change", as it consists only of primary sources, cannot be used and must therefore receive new sources, be re-written, or it's got to go. Le Marteau (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I see what you both mean. That's quite the discussion.

It seems to me that using Sowell's statements on global warming as a source for Sowell's statements on gobal warming is an appropriate use of a primary source. What makes it OK is that Sowell is an opinionator. There is no need to find a secondary source saying Sowell denies there is a need to address climate change, he says so himself.

I point out that much of this article simply quotes or summarizes Thomas Sowell's positions on a variety of topics. I'm not sure why the views on climate were subject to the additional requrirement for secondary sources summarizing or characterizing his positions on climate.

I also claim the practice of quoting opinionators as sources for some of their opinions is normative within Wikipedia. It occurs without objection in the wiki pages of many opinionators. To pick an example from my watchlist: Katie Hopkins has a long list of views-on-topics sections. Some of these sections merely quote or paraphrase her expressed views and some of them have other sources properly challenging or categorizing them. For example, her statement on feminism is fairly directly anti-feminist and the wiki-page didn't need a secondary source to characterize her view. By contrast her statement about Romani people is properly characterized as racist, but it required a secondary source describing it as such.

If Sowell were a climate scientist, then it would be necessary to find secondary sources which characterized or contradicted his statements on climate. If his opinions weren't explicit, it could be necessary to find the secondary source which summarized or categorized them. Or just leave his climate opinions out entirely, which is what the prior archived discussion concluded.

Having said all that, I recognize that this discussion has been had. And the conclusion was to omit his views on global warming. Thanks for pointing that out.

-- M.boli (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to find a secondary source saying Sowell denies there is a need to address climate change If we include them, then, yes, there is, because it is a fringe position and needs to be balanced by a mainstream reaction. I'm not sure why the views on climate were subject to the additional requrirement for secondary sources Because climate change is far outside Sowell's expertise and his position on that is simply wrong. Wikipedia is not Sowell's anti-science propaganda outlet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand Fringe, it is a valid point. I think it would suffice to link to denialism and insert a clause that the position is counter to what experts in the field accept. Viz something like Sowell denies there is a need to address global warming,[cite] a position contrary to most experts in the field. It seems bizarre to me to require secondary sources saying Sowell is wrong about that. The other fork of the argument for not-including Sowell's climate change views was that it is isn't a significant part of Sowell's notablity. Which I don't particularly disagree with.

Thanks for taking the time to explain, and for pointing to the archived discussion. I do understand the the issue has been decided. -- M.boli (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not just "most experts in field", it is an overwhelming majority of experts in the field. Independent of that, I had wikilawyers shoot down similar wordings, but we can try it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this and I had never heard of him before, but as we were asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Discussion_at_Thomas_Sowell I will just say that if it was a rarely expressed view it is probably not worth mentioning. Unless he was going on about it all the time one short quote is enough I think and if you do put it in you should date it and put it in the context of his time for example:

"In 2002, like many non-scientists at the time, Sowell misunderstood climate science and said ......

"Like x% of Americans of his generation Sowell mistakenly believes/believed that .....

"In 2015 during the rise of climate denialist, and later President, Donald Trump Sowell wrote '....... Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Also the first sentence describes him as an economist - so I wonder what his view was/is on the economics of climate change, for example I understand in that the US the social cost of carbon has been a political topic for some years, as according to Social_cost_of_carbon#History it was first mooted by the Reagan Administration? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Those three suggestions would be shot down by wikilawyers as WP:EDITORIALizing.

No, it was not just about economics of climate change. This is an example. It's just platitudes, false statements, and polemics. He calls global warming "hysteria" and a "swindle". He is just another run-of-the-mill propagator of false rumors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)