Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 1

unobjective
This article needs to be kept objective. It had previously been edited so poorly that much of the objective and relevant information was being overwhelmed by trivial details found only among Sowell's more obscure articles. If people are interested in referencing Sowell articles it is important to realize that he has written hundreds upon hundreds; fixation on only one or two is non-constructive. His books are far more relevant to his profile…

--70.68.179.142 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say your gripe is more related to pertinence, or keeping the article concise. Regarding objectivity, I am not familiar with the subject, but some brief research reveals he is controversial.  This article is heavily biased, after reading it, I'm about ready to go build a shrine to this icon of wisdom. 75.88.108.126 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Columns
All but the "gay marriage" link in the columns section seems to be broken. Mere notice. JesusIscariot 06:50, July 15, 2005 (PDT)

There needs to be links to Sowell's columns on school choice, charter schools, vouchers, and the problems with the education system. He has written much on this topic.

support for just war
the article says: a supporter of just war, and includes the war in Iraq as one.[19],[20] however, ref 19 doesn't really indicated that he supported Iraq war. #20 is written 2003 Feb the eve of war, and really just with the mild support. Are there other evidence of his view on this? Xah Lee 06:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sowell continues to write about the need to win in Iraq in his columns to this day.


 * In |an interview with The American Enterprise, Sowell was asked, "In Iraq we're attempting to build a democratic society. Is that an example of an unconstrained vision at work?" Sowell replied as follows:


 * "Yes. It may be that the Bush people are trying to appeal politically to people with utopian visions. I'm not privy to what the inner circle is saying. Before the Iraq war I was quite disturbed by some of the neoconservatives, who were saying things like, 'What is the point of being a superpower if you can't do such-and-such, take on these responsibilities?' The point of being a superpower is that people will leave you alone. An argument can be made that the war in Iraq was the right thing, with or without the weapons of mass destruction, because we needed to send a message to the terrorists, and, more important, to the people who are harboring the terrorists, that we will act. Everyone knew all along that the United States had the power to wipe out any nation on the face of the earth. I remember my sister saying, 'What could they be thinking coming over here and attacking the World Trade Center, knowing what the power situation was?' I said, 'They knew all that. They didn't think we had the guts to do anything.'"


 * Bearing in mind that Sowell considers "unconstrained visions" to be bad (see his book The Vision of the Anointed), we see from his response that he felt that invading Iraq in order to transform it into a democratic nation was a bad idea. However, he says that "an argument can be made" that going to Iraq was a good thing because it sent a message to the terrorists. Sowell usually writes and speaks very precisely--when he says "an argument can be made," he is saying neither that he agrees or that he disagrees with the conclusion of that argument. Thus from this interview we can conclude the following: First, Sowell disagrees with the concept of going to Iraq in order to "nation build." Second, Sowell may or may not disagree with the war in Iraq if justified using other arguments. --76.7.143.51 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This section claims that Sowell writes about 'alledged media bias'. I contend that in his writings Sowell 'alledges media bias' and does not write about 'alledged bias'.

Libertarianism/Conservatism
I removed the references to libertarianism from the article. Sowell is a staunch pro-war social conservative; just because he holds laissez-faire economic views does not make the libertarian label accurate. Elotana 03:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * laissez-faire economic system is central to libertarinism. Xah Lee 04:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that alone doesn't make Sowell a libertarian, because libertarians extend the attitude of laissez-faire to social and international policy. Sowell does not. Elotana 01:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Elotana: Can you show where Sowell does not let the concept of Laissez faire extend to social and international policy?

Sowell, like many libertarians and no doubt like every other intellectual persuasion, does not agree with every other libertarian. I recall reading somewhere, where Sowell refers to himself as a libertarian, but that he is not fond of many libertarian fetishes. He may adopt socially conservative positions, but this does not mean he is not a libertarian; Peoples ideas are rarely, consistent with a particular ideology; often times our ideas are the result of numerous influences sources etc and what Sowell, himself refers to as a "vision" or gut instinct about how the world works. Bottom line is that one libertarian's or conservatives beliefs are not necessarily the beliefs of all libertatrians or conservatives. ~Spiker_22


 * I am a Libertarian, and Thomas Sowell is my #1 influence. Enough said. [DB] November 2005
 * Here's a quote: "Nightmare for the 2008 Presidential election: Hillary Clinton versus John McCain. I wouldn't know whether to vote Libertarian or move to Australia." Here's the link: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/11/29/177141.html
 * This reinforces the fact that he doens't normally vote Libertarian. 58.162.2.122 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he compares voting Libertarian with fleeing to Australia! Jemmy Button 08:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Voting for the big-L Libertarian Party candidate and being a small-l libertarian are not the same thing. 65.42.26.190 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is no agreement on this issue, I have removed the reference to Sowell's political beliefs
 * He seems to be economically libertarian and socially conservative, judging by his columns. 58.162.2.122 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that sums it up quite well, but I don't think that is a very encyclopedic definition, I think maybe it is best to leave the issue out. --Lost Goblin 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where he stands on most social issues, but he's strongly opposed to relaxing immigration restrictions. One column he took on the libertarian argument that free-trade should also include free movement of peoples.  He throws random ad-hominem attacks into almost all of his columns, but I don't know that that says anything about his social views. --71.192.116.43 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This ought to help clarify the issue:


 * A Dangerous Obsession, Parts I II, III, IV, and V by Thomas Sowell (December 26, 2006)

Also, since this text, albeit not short, seems to summarize his thoughts on the issue of economics, it has been added to the main article. Asteriks 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That describes his position on economics quite well indeed, a nice summary of things he's said elsewhere. It is not, however, a social issue, Wikipedia's link-filled stub aside. What he's discussing is "social justice," one of those annoying humanist feel-good terms.  He certainly has a point, but it's not related to economics.  Unfortunately some people tend to conflate social issues with human rights, and with abstract platitudes about "social justice," something he'd note if he were a better writer. --71.192.116.13 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In an interview with Ray Sawhill, Sowell stated that he does not apply the term "conservative" to himself and that, if he had to choose one label to describe himself, it would be "libertarian". See:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell/index1.html

--76.2.44.243 00:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added Economic Fallacies, an interview with Thomas Sowell by Bill Steigerwald. Asteriks (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am adding (to the external links section) Too "Complex"?, Parts I, II, & III Asteriks (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Source request
Just removed this:

Sowell is often said by conservatives to be one of the greatest intellectuals still living.

Not against having it, but it needs several solid sources (since it does say "conservatives" plural). --NightMonkey 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

For example...I describe myself as libertarian, and while I have great admiration for Thomas Sowell, some of his policy positions, such as in foreign policy, are greatly at odds with my own positions. Sam Grove


 * Here is a source for you - I, a wikipedia poster, said Sowell is one of the smartest living Americans on Nov 2, 2006.


 * I a completely separate Wikipedia reviewer, states that Sowell is one of the greatest intellectuals still living. 1/30/09 I say this all the time at home, which makes it said often.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.234.5 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
There are so many quotes that they could be moved into a new Wikiquotes page.58.162.2.131 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Way too many quotes. Absent any lead-in or contextualizing it doesn't read like an attempt to illuminate the reader as to Sowell's core beliefs, it reads like a conservative decided to compile what s/he considered a list of Sowell's best "zingers" and throw them all in a list in an attempt to shill for the man. Keep about five or six and put the rest in the WikiQuotes page. There are more quotes here than on the WikiQuotes page - that's backwards. 24.218.204.209 06:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there were too many quotes. However, I have put back some of the quotes that you removed and have removed others instead. I've tried to capture as wide a range of quote topics as I could. Your thoughts on my new selection of quotes? -- SirEditALot  21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias
There is no alternative view of Sowell in this account to that of a prophet/saint. It shows only the extreme right perspective.


 * I agree with you that there is almost no criticism of Sowell in the article (there is one critical external link). Be bold, have a stab at fixing it, if you're so inclined. Crust 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, but not too bold, bearing in mind that this is a biography of a living person. Crust 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When you feel the temptation to use labels like "extreme right" perhaps you should at least hesitate. Labelism does absolutely nothing but harden feelings and make it more difficult to reach compromise on any political topic. It's basically name calling, especially when used pejoratively, and It's certainly not a substitute for substantive discourse about an article (which I've noticed is completely lacking in your comment). MoodyGroove 11:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * MoodyGroove, I didn't use the label "extreme right" so I'm a little puzzled at how you decided that I was tempted to do so. That said, Sowell is a highly controversial figure.  So it shouldn't be hard to find some responsible critical material to put in both in the text and the external links for balance.  And no, some anonymous person comparing him to a cookie is not my idea of responsible.Crust 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to you, but rather, to the unsigned editor who wrote "it only shows the extreme right perspective." I've noticed this a lot on the English Wikipedia. Liberals tend to identify the legitimate political spectrum as extending from far left to moderate. Conservatism is viewed as a question of abnormal psychology. An insufficiently critical article about a black economist is an extreme right wing attempt to make him look like a saint, so it's vital that we "fix" the article by putting in some criticism. I agree the Oreo comment was laughable, but at the same time it was very telling. MoodyGroove 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * I think there's bias of every kind on Wikipedia, liberal and conservative, subtle and laughable. This article is currently insufficiently critical of Sowell (I may be missing something, but I see exactly no criticism in this long article on a controversial figure), talk about black economists, the extreme right, labelism, abnormal psychology, telling comments and saints notwithstanding.Crust 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd personally be fascinated to see some legitimate criticism of Thomas Sowell. MoodyGroove 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Brief notes on some of Sowell's thoughts
I find this section to be poorly written and in a poor format. I don't disagree about having the section, but it needs a lot of help. Additionally it should be perhaps titled "Selected summary of Sowell's Opinions" as "Brief notes" indicates someone else's opinion on his thoughts. Barney Gumble 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is race important in this context?
Why is it important to call him an African-American economist? If I am not mistaken he is part of the Chicago School and am not aware of a school of economics that is "black". Why is it necessary to distinguish him from other economists based on race? I seem to remember him being a guest on a radio program and saying that he is black "because both my parents were black" not because he derives his identity from his race. After all Keynes' page does not list him as a "white economist". --Jayson Virissimo 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be a comma between "African-American" and "economist"? --76.2.44.243 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:76.2.44.243: Can you show how Sowell's ideas would be different if he were white or Asian? ~ Spiker_22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is a social fact of note.Tom Cod 05:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed this per wp:mosbio. Ethnicity should be kept out of the lead unless it is the reason the person is notable. Thanks! --Tom 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Someone recently added a new section titled "Criticism" and placed the following sentence in that section: "A well resepected minority political science lecturer and prominent faculty member of the University of Alabama recently contended that Thomas Sowell is a 'Double Stuff Oreo' and indicated Sowell is 'the whitest person on the planet' and 'about as Uncle Tom as it gets.'"

No source was given. The name of the "respected minority political science lecturer" is not even given. I've searched, but cannot find the source. Wikipedia policy on citing sources states that "All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately." Thomas Sowell is a living person. The passage in question was both unsourced and contentious. Thus, I have removed it (for now).

If someone finds out who Sowell's unnamed critic is, feel free to add the Criticism section back to the article. --76.7.143.51 16:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Infantile name calling passes for criticism in academia? Maybe we should rename the section. MoodyGroove 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Crust pointed out in his edit summary that the section read like a parody. I looked over it again, and he may be correct. It really does sound too extreme to be anything a University of Alabama faculty member actually said. If so, then this is a clear case of vandalism by 24.236.224.13, the user who originally added the section.


 * The theory that this was just a parody is further bolstered by the fact that 24.236.224.13 make two edits. First, he added the criticism section; and, second, he went back and added the "citation needed" tag. He added the material himself so he should know where he got the material from. Why would he add a citation needed tag instead of a reference unless there was never a real source? --76.7.143.51 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done, . Frighteningly plausible. Either that or my sarcasm meter is broken. MoodyGroove 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * The original vandalism was mildly amusing at best, but this little conversation is hilarious. Jemmy Button 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the above aside, this article is in desperate need of a well-sourced section on Sowell's critics. At such a great length it reads like hagiography. Inoculatedcities (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we say something about his recent comparison of Obama to Hitler? Mr. Sowell's views seem to be getting more radical/controversial/offensive with time?

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/09/16/idols_of_crowds?page=2&sort=desc&comments=true#comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.196.209.62 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, who self-identifies as Jewish and certainly a left-liberal, made essentially the same point as Sowell in Stewart's sarcastic comment after Candidate Obama's rally in Germany. (From memory): "Hundreds of thousands of Germans adulating a charismatic leader who can mesmerize them with his rhetoric -- what could possibly go wrong with that?" .... The issue being (to Sowell, in this editor's view) that Obama was most certainly a mesmerizing orator, and there is danger in people who can so hypnotize a crowd that the content of what they say, or the facts (or lack of facts) behind it, is not judged skeptically.


 * "Offensive" -- to whom? To yourself? OK. Not relevant to the article. As for "radical and controversial": Suppose for the sake of argument that the country is indeed moving in what Dr. Sowell believes is the wrong direction. Then his remarks would be perceived by that government and its supporters as radical and controversial, while Sen. Harry Reid's recent racist remarks are quickly forgiven. If the *substance* of Sowell's views has changed since his conversion from Marxism to capitalism, then please document that properly and add it to the article. This editor doesn't believe they have, and holds to the supposition at the beginning of this paragraph -- absent reliable sources to the contrary. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Writings section seems odd
Currently, about 3/4 of the "Writings" section is dedicated to discussion of one of his lesser-known books, on overdiagnosis of autism. Surely this isn't appropriate weight? --Delirium 03:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is undue weight given to a couple of books that do not represent the major part of his work.--Parkwells (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sowell Confuses "Liberal" with "Yuppie"
I read a column by Sowell, that made some cogent points, about environmentalists and the social economy of conservation and greenbelt measures in which, as part of the trend to demonize "liberals" on any pretext, he repeatedly alluded to the affluent residents of Monterey County and San Francisco as liberals, castigating their alleged measures as anti-working class deeds of a privileged liberal elite. "privileged" and an "elite" they may be but whether they are liberal is another matter as most of them are those who have reaped their wealth from the stock market and corporate jobs, i.e capitalism and are in no ways in favor of socialism etc. anymore than Theodore Roosevelt and John D. Rockefeller & Son were. Moreover he appears to not really have any evidence as to what the demography of the supporters of these measures was or their political orientation overall. Maybe they were working class people from the Mission District and not the denizens of Russian and Nob Hills who tend to be Wall St. conservatives, albeit trendy ones. Tom Cod 05:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy socks, Tom Cod!! I doubt whether the source of one's wealth ("most of them are those who have reaped their wealth from the stock market and corporate jobs, i.e capitalism and are in no ways in favor of socialism etc.") has very much to do with their ideology. Further, one does not need to advocate socialism to be a liberal although there are many similarities between the two. Finally, if one advocates policies that drive up the cost of living in a particular area (open space laws, etc) to the extent that the working class can not afford to live there, you can certainly describe it as "anti-working class deeds of a privileged liberal elite." Sowell lives in CA and no doubt is speaking from experience. In another era, policies designed to preserve the "Character of the community" would rightly have been perceived as racist. It is amazing that we tolerate people saying what can or can't be done with property that is not their own: That housing should not be built within so many feet, miles etc of my home because open spaces are more valuable than housing. The whole accusation of "Demonizing liberals" is unfounded here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

==The word "liberal" is really inaccurate. "Progressive" is better.

I don't know how to edit the "notes" section, but here are the updated link to the referred articles
I don't get it at all, they don't seem to be there, as if it were a predefinition or something like it.

Here they are, anyway:
 * 3 - Sowell, Thomas (2002). "Milton Friedman at 90"
 * 4 - Sowell, Thomas (2003). "Quotas on trial"
 * 5 - Sowell, Thomas (2003). "Quotas on trial: part II"

The current links lead to 404s, due to some change in the site's architecture, but they are still there on Townhall. I think that usually, it would be preferable to have not only the link but also the title of the referred article, so it would be far more easier to find it again. --Extremophile (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Can someone add a photo please? Gautam Discuss 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error
Sowell shows that for centuries, non-white nations like China were more advanced that those of Europe until comparatively recent times.

It should read:

Sowell shows that for centuries, non-white nations like China were more advance than those of Europe until comparatively recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.204.207 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Bio facts
I saw an interview he did (with Charlie Rose I think) where Sowell says he was a Marxist in college. And what changed his views was working for the government. And it was there that he saw firsthand the increase in unemployment caused by raising the minimum wage.

Answer to baseball player to hit .382 in his last year in the major leagues.
Joe Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.146.142 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What is america's most widely suscribed internet-based publication?
The Patriot Post. (Estoniankaiju (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Real Articles?
I know Thomas Sowell is a pretty low-level economist. He's done virtually nothing to advance economic theory and his economic views are shallow and debunked repeatedly, yet for some reason he's lauded by the media. Anyway, my question is, are their any economic journal articles he's published? All of the links are popular media rather than real peer-reviewed publications. Has he published anything? If so, it should probably be included no matter how irrelevant it is to the economic profession just for completeness. Seelum (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you are the one claiming to "know" that "Thomas Sowell is a pretty low-level economist. He's done virtually nothing to advance economic theory and his economic views are shallow and debunked repeatedly," how about your applying the same standard (which you claim he does not ascribe to), to your self? In short, demonstrate to us how you "know" that. Show us your research and documentation which will show that you really do possess such knowledge.


 * Shallow? What standard of measurement are you using to make that determination? Debunked? By whom and how? Show us you have actually, objectively researched the issue which you are raising, and not just regurgitating something you have read somewhere, probably on one of those Far-Left sites that are notorious for ad hominem sneers, but little else. EditorASC (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sowell can't be debunked by mere mortals such as you or I. Who are these superhumans?Jarhed (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Name pronunciation
Ann Coulter is making fun today of how Keith Olberman can't pronounce Sowell's name. How do you say it? I thought it rhymed with 'foal'.Jarhed (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)