Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 2

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Yeah, I wonder myself what his being a Marxist had to do with the Puerto Rican sugar industry. However the story is true and appears in his biography 'A Personal Odyssey" - pages 131-132. On those pages he mentions the Puerto Rico situation and on page 132 explicitly states that he was a Marxist. QUOTE:
 * "I had remained a Marxist, despite being at the University of Chicago, but now my experience in Washington began a process of changing my mind completely as to how to deal with social problems."


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * You found squat, CartoonDiablo. Media Matters is a leftist criminal front group that continuously violates its tax-exempt status as a non-profit U.S. entity, as radio commentator Mark Levin has frequently stated for several years.  Anything appearing on their site and quoted in the Criticism section of this article is suspect and unauthoritative.  You're trying too hard, and the fact that you even started this section may indicate that you're pushing a POV.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 17:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Basic Economics 4th Edition
The fourth edition of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics has come up. If I had the book (I plan on getting it in a few months,) I could update the information as it pertains to the published works section of this article. PokeHomsar (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Do that..-- Novus Orator 07:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thought, again
This is the most ridiculously bloated section I've seen in a long time. Who came up with section headings like this, "Intellectuals are “idea” workers, who often presume special wisdom and insight outside their area of expertise to guide others, while being unaccountable for results"? Besides ridiculously long, they are also argumentative. The entire section is nothing but a very favorable essay on Sowell's work including summaries and selected examples, and all of it is based on primary sources. This should be an encyclopedia, not a hagiography for someone who isn't even dead yet. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An editor just reinstated one of the offending sections, with a subsection called "Ordinary citizens might benefit from analyzing issues and public policies in terms of costs, benefits and trade-offs, where scarce resources have alternative uses, rather than rely on lofty rhetoric from political leaders, activists and special interests" ("Titles should be short—preferably fewer than ten words", from the MOS: this one is 36 words). That very title for a section is warrant enough to place an "essay-like" tag on the article. The reinstated text is almost wholly based on primary sources--it cites one single secondary source--hence the "primary sources" and "original research" tags. Whoever wrote that section originally did not, in my opinion, have a firm grasp of some of WP's guidelines on sourcing and referencing, and I urge the editor who restored it to reconsider. Considering the utter reliance on primary sources, the lack of specific citations, the synthesis involved in connecting themes in Sowell's books, and the non-neutral tone, I have no option but to place a POV tag on the article. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article could definitively use some work. What I would really like to see is an expanded criticism section. It seems like there are not very many intellectuals who have critiqued his work, and it would be interesting to find it that is truly the case.-- Novus Orator 03:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The subsection on "trade-offs, constraints and incentives" needs to be there to go with the list earlier that introduces it. However, I agree that the section, and some of its headers, are too long and should be edited (including moving some of the material to other pages).  I also agree that the page needs more criticism. DougHill (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides length (and excessive detail...) my problem really is with the sourcing. Criticism is fine, and Andrewlp1991 added some, but what should really be the first order of business is to summarize his work adequately, concisely, and in a neutral manner, based not on a reading of his work but on a reading of secondary sources. It's not like a song or a movie, or even a book, where WP allows a brief plot summary (really, original research)--these sections compare his books, synthesize information, make general statements about themes and topics, et cetera, and that simply cannot be: it is the essence of original research. Surely there are secondary sources available--encyclopedic articles, critiques, book reviews. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of representing what someone thinks, a popular writer like Sowell is the best source. Not his academic works but works for the general public. The concern in general with primary sources are some require original research rather than just reading the text, the text will be taken out of context by an editor or it is not easily seen if the editor is summarizing it well, and bias by the primary source. None of these are issues when the works are used to determine his viewpoint. In terms of NPOV, you can quote from When Work Disappears for alternate theories of why the ghetto is poor. Also, other works. --Javaweb (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

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


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


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

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


 * Yes, Krugman criticism can be found in 10 seconds. Everyone on the right can rip his dubious economic remedies to shreds in 10 seconds.  Anyone who has ever taken Economics 101 could do it. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source and using it as a basis for a "Criticism" section (which also against NPOV) is a WP:BLP violation. I've deleted the offending passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.32.238 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read points people raised and with regards to the media matters criticism and feel some things need to be clarified.


 * The claims are verifiable from Sowell's own work (with the citations given).
 * Media matters is used to verify that the criticism exists, not as a source for the criticism (thus it's irrelevant to remove it on the basis of reliable sources).
 * A "Criticism" section is not inherently a violation of WP:BLP and none of the content in the section was either.
 * I understand these are good faith edits but the section shouldn't be removed based on these grounds.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BLPs have a higher threshold for sources and I don't think Media Matters reaches it. Surely this criticism could be found in more reliable sources if it is indeed notable? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The statements are cited in Sowell's own writing.CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When not making "war" on Fox News, Media Matters spend lots of time and money attacking conservatives and other non-lefties, often with little or no attempt at honesty. They have been proved to be liars, over and over and over again. That MMfA has attacked a non-lefty is completely insignificant. Quoting a target accurately is a rather low bar (though they often fail there); honesty is a much harder standard. MMfA is a completely unreliable source.
 * I will remove MMfA-based attacks from any BLP, including this one, whenever I find them.
 * If there is any significance or validity to this attack, find a decent source (eg., not Soros-funded) making it; MMfA has neither significance nor validity.
 * If you insert the MMfA attacks again (without first establishing consensus on this page), I will report you for violating WP:BLP. Please take this seriously. CWC 04:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not they cite his own writing is irrelevant. The fact that they take issue with what he said is not notable. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course it's notable, the criticism reached over to Sarah Palin defending him. I'm tired of people making blatant POV edits (ie Chris Chittleborough) and if this keeps up I might ask a higher wikipedia authority to settle this dispute. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * CD, You have repeated inserted a ref that searches mediamatters.org for "Thomas Sowell". That's not WP:V, that's trawling for attacks on a living person. You have repeatedly inserted refs to MMFA pages which intentionally deceive readers about Prof Sowell. (BTW, the Politico article is equally dishonest.)
 * Two people here have suggested finding reliable sources (read: not MMFA, not the Washington Monthly) for the criticisms you are so keen to keep into this article; you have simply reverted the unacceptable refs back in. You are violating WP:BLP. You are violating WP:V. Please stop. CWC 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For anyone whose still citing Media matters as a non-reliable source see my earlier comment. Since the consensus is based on an obvious violation of NPOV, and since we can't seem to find a resolution I'll take it to the appropriate noticeboard. (edit: the discussion can be found here.)      CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Superfluous recapitulation of books' argument removed
The majority of this section consisted of argumentative recapitualtion of arguments within the books cited. Inappropriate. Naterial redacterd. JTGILLICK (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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

His "Basic Economics" is considered one of the greatest economic texts for the layman. "Peer-reviewed research" is a fig leaf. Economics is a truth profession. Human nature is what makes it so. Sociology is a field I have little respect for, which you may be confusing for economics here. PokeHomsar (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sociology is a truth profession. Human nature is what makes it so. Economics is a field I have little respect for, which you may be confusing for sociology here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.63.68 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Sociology is not economics
Did you guys really put a criticism from a sociologist in the "Economic criticism" section? First of all, the criticism is a load of BS (most of sociology is, sorry, friends.) Secondly, it doesn't actually address Thomas Sowell's larger point. Sounds like whoever is writing the criticism section has never actually read Sowell, just those who criticize him. And all of the criticisms from the economics perspective aren't criticisms. They're the equivalent of people looking at Sowell's conclusions and going "Nuh uh." PokeHomsar (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposite = true. Economics is mostly just excuses for the rich and powerful to stay that way. All those greedy professors at state-sponsored institutions want to take your tax dollars, nevermind all those Koch brother employees running around... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.63.68 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Welfare studies in Criticism section
I've deleted the two studies referenced in the critisims section as I believe they violate WP:NOR. The studies were not in direct response to any of Thomas Sowell's work. Thus they were not "criticisms". The contributing editor that added them seems to have been using them to formulate his/her own personal criticism of Thomas Sowell and therefore the addition would qualify as original research. In the future the "criticism" section should be reserved for sources that DIRECTLY respond to work by Sowell. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor reverted my change. Please explain to me why you did so and discuss it with me here.  Again, editors should not be adding sources they think are applicable, but rather sources that are directly related to the topic, which in this case is Thomas Sowell's work.  If a source does NOT concern Thomas Sowell's work than it should not be included.  JohnnyJ160 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also reverted your edits (primarily on the basis of content removal with no edit summary, my bad on this occasion but it would be helpful to include one, however brief). Having re-read the section I tend to agree with your analysis. d a n n o  22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your due diligence. I included an edit summary the first time I removed the section, but didn't the second time.  That's my bad.  I would just like the person that included them, and then ignored my edit to re-include them, to defend his/her position. JohnnyJ160 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)