Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)/Archive 1

Ayn Rand Institute
This section reads as an autobiography. It discusses Epstein's career ambitions without any external references. The tone calls into question the objectivity of the entire article. Lkhilton (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alex Epstein (American writer). 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/20150109224804/http://ari.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21361&news_iv_ctrl=2527 to http://ari.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21361&news_iv_ctrl=2527
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109224807/http://ari.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=media_AlexEpstein to http://ari.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=media_AlexEpstein

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) 18:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported claim?
An edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/827140416) added the following text: "though CIP is for-profit and thus does not receive funds from anyone, including the Kochs." The whole paragraph now reads: "He also criticizes Epstein for being an "ideologue" funded by petrochemical billionaires, the Koch brothers, though CIP is for-profit and thus does not receive funds from anyone, including the Kochs.[6]" The citation supports only the old text. It does not say anything about CIP not receiving funds (the opinion piece actually cited claims CIP is funded by "the Kochs"). Nor is the statement a case of common-sense logic: being a for-profit company does not preclude "receiving funds". I have briefly checked, and cannot find anything supporting such a statement. As its a BLP, I didn't just want to delete the statement. The editor who added the statement may have forgotten to reference it, or whatever. Assuming good-faith in the edit, I'm hoping someone can find a suitable reference. Prime Lemur (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit required & NPOV
Just wanted to flag this article requires some copy editing to improve flow. I feel the article reads in a way that makes it obvious it has been written by different people at different times. There are also issues with NPOV in some places. At surface level, Epstein appears to be a polemicist, someone whose views sit right up one end of a spectrum of opinion that constitutes discourse on a topic, and I don't think this is properly conveyed by the article. Prime Lemur (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
The sources that support the statement that this book is "well reviewed" are one-sided, they are all from websites that have the same political point of view as Epstein. --MrBurns (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Currently the only review mentioned in the article is from the Heartland Institute. The unreliability of that source more than speaks for itself. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added a few critical reviews of Epstein's book. It was not reviewed by major print publications or even by Kirkus. Rbirds (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that this section appears to have been completely removed and thus Talk comments in this section above are not relevant for the time being. As to my opinion on the above comments, it is better to leave comments such as 'well reviewed' or 'unreliable' completely out of Wikipedia articles as these are subjective. One person's 'well reviewed' is not another's, and one person's 'unreliable' think tank is another's reliable.Dextermorganthegreat (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * These are cases where attribution is useful. As an encyclopedia, it is often worth including weighty opinions of experts and reviewers, and this is common on this project. Jlevi (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Washington Times article
I fixed up a reference to a Washington Times article, which mentions Epstein quite a bit:

The article didn't support the claim it was attached to, so I removed it. But it seems potentially useful. So I am pasting the reference here, in the event an interested editor wants to pick it up. -- M.boli (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Odd deletions of Epstein's own articles
I think this edit (labeled as deleting dubious sources) as ill-considered. The edit deleted two things: I'm putting them back, I think deleting Epstein's own words as because they happened to appear in non-reliable sources may have been a hasty mistake. The article was not relying on either Fox or Forbes reportage. -- M.boli (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * An Epstein opinion published by Fox News. It was a cite for the statement that Epstein publishes opinion pieces in various news outlets, including Fox news.
 * Epstein's rebuttal to the Rolling Stone article, published in Forbes. It seems to me that in this BLP it is basic fairness include the LP's rebuttal.