Talk:Albert Lasker

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Lasker. 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/20100111054458/http://www.anbhf.org/laureates/lasker.html to http://www.anbhf.org/laureates/lasker.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503060533/http://www.anbhf.org/lasker_ads.html to http://www.anbhf.org/lasker_ads.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Problems
There are a couple of problems I see in reading this. First is the claim that a book "posits" Lasker was mentally ill. Books are not sentient, AUTHORS make claims in books. Jeffrey L. Cruikshank, the author of the apparent claim has ZERO authority in psychiatry, he therefore should NOT be used as the basis of such a controversial and speculative claim. The claim is stated as if it is fact, and the overwhelming medical opinion about mental illness is...wait for it...you actually have to TALK to the patient, not base a diagnoses on second or third hand hearsay. Second is the claim that Lasker was instrumental in increasing the NIH budget from $2.5 million to $5 billion by 1985. It makes no sense to credit him with acts done after his death in 1952!! IN 1945 appropriations were ~$3 million and in 1952 ~$47 million - a factor of ~16X. Third, his "legacy" must include not only his critical support of cancer research (government funding as well as reorganization of the American Cancer Society) but his contributions to Major League Baseball and the use of advertising in the election of President Harding as well as the general use of "modern" advertising which literally changed the world (and certainly popular American culture) (Notably, imho, sex education (for girls) in public schools and the targeting of women by cigarette adds.)98.21.72.69 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Attributing an opinion to a book rather than to the book's author is a fairly standard bit of metonymy, there's nothing wrong with that. Your statements regarding the book's validity or lack thereof, I'm not going to address because I have insufficient information. "Legacy" is, in this context, being used for those things that are named for him. DS (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * to assert a claim in a major published book is " controversial and speculative" requires a reliable source. The book was vetted by a major academic publisher (Harvard Business Review Press) and has good reviews. Rjensen (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)