Talk:Megan McArdle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old comments[edit]

why doesn't this article come up when I search wikipedia for megan mcardle? I got here through google... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.92.220 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 22 August 2008

Why is this article considered part of the Chicago Wiki project? McArdle started her career in New York and is currently living in D.C. I don't understand the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.52.1 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McArdle was "[...] graduate of the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business" [1]. 80.177.9.239 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of criticism of her out there about the quality of her journalism. Not a plagiarism issue, but of playing fast-and-loose with numbers, doing insufficient statistical research, misapplying theory, that kind of thing. Berkley Economics professor Brad Delong, Ezra Klein at Washington Post, Jonathan Cohn at New Republic, Isaac Chotiner at New Republic, and MIT professor Tom Levenson at Inverse Squared blog have all criticized her handling of facts and numbers to the point where it merits mentioning. She got into a fight with commenters because she miscalculated an important GDP figure by a factor of 10, and then didn't correct, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.141.176 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-2003101201033172.html

should be deleted[edit]

The page is a resume of someone who's sole distinction is that they are a blogger for the atlantic. Working for the atlantic and the economist do not solely satisfy notability requirements. As a journalist being cited by other journalists is not sufficient either. The only viable argument for notability is that she has come up with jane's law "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane." Aside from the fact that this proposition is in no way enlightening, the irrelevance of the "term jane's" law is demonstrated by the result of googling it: the only site mentioning it is the author's own. Consequently, if notability standards are expanded to include this subject I do not see how anybody else that is employed by a reputable publication and has an online presence can be considered not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybkin (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every source about her, both positive and negative, is a blog. Not only is she not noteworthy, there are no reliable sources about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.107.53 (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

should not be deleted[edit]

She's one of the most famous economics bloggers in the world. Everyone who is seriously interested in economics knows who she is. A search for her name yields north of a quarter million hits on google. This is this about the same number as Tyler Cowen who I certainly don't think anyone would debate notability on. The fact that she doesn't meet wikipedia's standards of notability reflects that the standards themselves are weak. She is notable. I would advise against deletion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.15.8 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She most certainly is not "one of the most famous economics bloggers in the world". Maybe. just maybe in this country she has some recognition but even here she is an obscure writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Delong beats McArdle on google searches. 80 percent more. http://www.google.com/trends?q=megan+mcardle%2C+brad+delong&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.107.53 (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't an economist. Her only tangential claim to that label is an MBA, not quite an economics degree. Most MBA programs require one microeconomics class at most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.213.136.128 (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

previously deleted following discussion[edit]

It should be dispositive that since the entry was previously deleted on notability grounds (see the previous deletion discussion linked to above) and that since the previous deletion the subjects notability status has not changed, the entry should be deleted again.75.36.68.158 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this page was moved from a user subpage without the user's permission or knowledge. If it is determined that the page should be removed from the article space, it should probably be restored as the user's subpage. Dancter (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. --Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nom'ed for CSD and I'm the admin who declined it. While typically a page that is recreated after an AfD can be speedied, the AfD was almost 2 years ago, the article carries a number of assertions of notability, so I determined that it would be better, if the person still wants it deleted, to renominate it at AfD. I believe I said as much in my declination edit summary, as well. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why ther eis an article for deletion entry on the top of this page but nothing is there when clicked. --Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new comment[edit]

How can this article consider her a libertarian when she's more or less advocating Keynesian ideology? http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/spending_freeze_repeating_the.php

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.83.158 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable question; I changed the description to "moderate libertarian" at the top, to match the description further down. If you can think of a better term, feel free to change it. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there anything here about the extensive criticisms that have been directed at her?24.117.178.54 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

There is a lot of criticism of her out there about the quality of her journalism. Not a plagiarism issue, but of playing fast-and-loose with numbers, doing insufficient statistical research, misapplying theory, that kind of thing. Berkley Economics professor Brad Delong, Ezra Klein at Washington Post, Jonathan Cohn at New Republic, Isaac Chotiner at New Republic, and MIT professor Tom Levenson at Inverse Squared blog have all criticized her handling of basic facts, theories and numbers to the point where it merits mentioning. She got into a fight with commenters because she miscalculated an important GDP figure by a factor of 10, and then didn't correct, and so on.It seems that the people who we would regard as her peers, dealing with the same issues of economic policy, financial regulatory reform, and health care, don't consider her an authority.

This Wikipedia page reads like her personal web page. Extremely well sourced sections pointing out factual inaccuracies in her journalism and apparent ideological bias have been repeatedly deleted. If McArdle wants her own Wikipedia page, it needs to be balanced and include criticism of her work.

I wouldn't say the added text has been as extremely well-sourced as you say. Specifically, these are all part of the set of text you've tried to add:
  • "She writes... from a pro-business, anti-government perspective"
  • "It is unknown whether McArdle herself has been a recipient of Koch funding, but she has defended the family in her writing."
  • "McArdle's critique contained a number of inaccuracies and mistakes."
These are expressions of opinion, and one attempt at guilt-by-association, that don't belong in the article, unless they're part of a cited opinion by a notable source. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(You're clearly a newcomer to Wikipedia editing, so you don't know that you're not supposed to intersperse your remarks with other people's on the talk page. Please don't do it again. Also, you should sign your comments. I've moved all your inline comments below. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

<--Describing McArdle's writing as pro-business and anti-government is no less accurate or more subjective than describing it as moderate libertarian. In fact, it's more on point, since libertarianism also comes in left wing varieties, to which McArdle does not subscribe. Those who write about McArdle--including the Washington Post--describe her as probusiness and anti-government. McArdle describes herself as libertarian. I think it would be fair to note the disagreement rather than choose one or the other.

<---McArdle's critique of Elizabeth Warren contained many factual inaccuracies and mistakes. These are not matters of opinion. They are matters of fact and have been pointed out by highly reputable scholars to whom I cited. These have been extremely well documented in the citations you deleted. If you believe that McArdle's description of Elizabeth Warren's research was accurate, by all means cite to someone reputable who has mounted a factual defense of McArdle and state that there is a difference of opinion.

<---It is true that McArdle has defended the Koch's in her writing. Just google "McArdle and Koch." Or click on the link to her writing. It is also true that there is little information available about whether Koch has directly funded McArdle, but he has funded Reason magazine which has paid her for her articles and which employes her husband. This isn't "guilt" by association unless you think there is something that Koch is guilty of. No one is accusing Koch of illegality, but his funding clearly raises a conflict of interest issue that people deserve to be aware of.

Do not censor valid and factually substantiated critiques of McArdle. This is wikipedia--a source of unbiased information--not a free advertising service for bloggers like McArdle.

For calling her pro-business and anti-government - if you can find a citation for the Washington Post calling her those things, then feel free to add it back in, with the citation. Ideally, as you said, the article should contain both her and their descriptions. For the "many factual inaccuracies" - out of curiosity, can you list, say, one or two inaccuracies that are so well-documented that they're beyond the range of opinion? And for the Koch association - the alleged "guilt" here is, as you note, conflict of interest - and your bringing it up in this article constitutes original research, unless you can find a reputable source accusing her of such a conflict of interest. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't McCardle herself acknowledge at least the appearance of a conflict of interest when she discussed her and her family's links to Koch on her blog? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/the-singular-of-data-is-anecdote/19873/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/03/playboy-dips-a-toe-into-investigative-journalism/4770/ It's worth including in her profile. Conflicts of interest happen all the time. As long as they are disclosed, the risk is minimal. Hiding the conflict of interest is what creates the problems.

As for inaccuracies in McArdle's critique of Warren, they are listed in the blog posts. They include:

Ms. McCardle claims that a survey response rate was 20%. The response rate was actually right at 50%, or just under that, depending on the exact metric for response rate used. http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/megan-mcardles-hack-post-on-elizabeth-warrens-scholarship/

McArdle also claims that Warren said Medical problems were the sole cause of bankruptcy. Warren never said that. She said they were among a number of contributing causes. http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/megan-mcardles-hack-post-on-elizabeth-warrens-scholarship/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.107.53 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of conflict of interest: now we're getting somewhere. The key is to accurately quote notable sources. In this case, the sentence you added - "It is unknown whether McArdle herself has been a recipient of Koch funding, but she has defended the family in her writing." - does not spring from anything McArdle has said. Actually, any attempt to connect Koch funding to her view of the Kochs would constitute synthesis - combining facts in an unsourced way, which is also not allowed - unless you can find notable sources drawing the same conclusion.
As for the inaccuracies you cite, one seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a "response rate", while the other hinges on the meaning of the word "causal". Neither one seems like an incontrovertible "fact". In any case, instead of putting in a phrase like "a number of inaccuracies and mistakes", why not simply list the points of contention, like you have here? That seems like the much more informative solution for readers. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that McArdle receives indirect Koch funding through IHS has been noted on blogs. McArdle herself is a blogger. If blogs are not a reliable source of information, then the entire page on her should promptly be deleted, since a blogger--a supplier of unreliable information--is clearly not significant enough to have her own page. IHS's own website lists McArdle as a fellowship recipient and lecturer and Koch as a sponsor. That's not "synthesis" or analysis, it's a simple statement of fact that is readily available from the horse's mouth.

Claiming that a 50 percent response rate is a 20 percent response rate is an unambiguous mistake. 20 is not equal to 50. In fact, it's not even close--it's less than half of 50. The question isn't about what constitutes a response rate, the question is whether the number is 20 or 50. The only person who doesn't seem to think so is Megan McArdle.

If I say the temperature outside is 60 degrees Fahrenheit and it's really 100 degrees Fahrenheit, is there just a simple disagreement about what Fahrenheit means? Because that seems to be what you are saying.

There is a difference between primary cause and contributing cause. Primary means the only one. Contributing means one among many. Again, McArdle claimed Warren said it was the only one. Warren actually said it was one of many. There is no ambiguity. McArdle was wrong, as sure as the number two is larger than the number one. No ambiguity--black and white as it comes.

In all honesty, are you trying to make the page more accurate, or just make sure it's as positive as possible and prevent any criticism of McArdle from appearing on her page?

I think it's fair to be specific about the mistakes and provide examples. I also think it's fair to note her Koch connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.107.53 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that blogs are not a reliable source of information - some are and some aren't (which is totally unrelated to which of them merit their own Wikipedia article, but that's a different story). Anyway, the funding per se isn't the issue; the issue is connecting that to her statements about the Kochs - which, as I noted before, may constitute synthesis on your part.
For the 20 vs. 50 thing - my understanding is that 50% responded in some way, while 20% responded fully, by responding to the interview questions or something. In any case, it looks like the latest version of your changes contains more cited facts, which is good. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis point is noted. I've cited to a blog post which directly mentions McArdle's connection to Koch through IHS, so there is no longer a synthesis issue. I've also identified specific noteworthy critics of McArdle instead of the vague "some have criticized . . ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.212.151 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs noting McArdles links to the Kochs are notable, since they are (1) accurate--verifiable by looking at the IHS and Koch foundation websites; (2) go to the conflict of interest issue which McCardle has herself disclosed and others have raised; (3) were more or less disclosed by McCardle herself--she noted the Kochs involvement with IHS and that she has seen him at private events.

A number of supposedly independent journalists (Barone, Carney) have been cited as defenders / supporters of McCardle's articles. This implies independence from McCardle. Their links to the Kochs are relevant to the issue of their independence. If they and McCardle are really just two mouth pieces for the same Patron, their support is not independent and is therefore irrelevant. Either their Koch links should remain in the article or their support of McCardle should come out.

McCardle making up statistics about healthcare, then claiming those statistics were hypotheticals, then claiming she misunderstood the question should not have been deleted. It belongs under inaccuracies and mistakes.

Once again, perfectly valid and well sourced material critical of McCardle has been censored from this article with rather dubious explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.212.151 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support doesn't imply "independence", whatever that means. What's stated is simply that person B approvingly quoted person A - readers can draw their own conclusions about what that means. If you think that it's irrelevant because they're all just puppets of the same patrons (who, by the way, seem to have significant powers to bend people to their will with relatively small amounts of money), that's up to you. But if you want the article to indicate that, you'll have to find some notable source that specifically states that McArdle, Barone etc. are all connected in whatever way you think they are.
And as for notability of a blog (or any other source) - it's unrelated to whether what the source is saying is accurate. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is not McCardle--it's Wikipedia. Here's a highly controversial, self-avowed partisan blogger whose Wikipedia entry reads as if there is zero controversy about her and her work. How is it that Wikipedia as a self-regulating organization is unable to cope with the ongoing efforts of McCardle and her fellow partisans to remove the slightest mention of controversy from her entry? I thought that when this happens the Wikipedia organization steps in and locks the entry to keep it from being constantly scrubbed by partisans--either pro or con the subject of the entry--and then force the combatants to duke it out in Talk sections like this.

I don't think the entry should be deleted, although it's hard to imagine an encyclopedia having a page for a blogger as partisan as this--but it shouldn't be here if it doesn't contain the slightest amount of criticism with the appropriate links. The entry as is stands is harmful to Wikipedia's credibility, and should be seen as such even by people who share McCardle's politics--unless she and they are actually totalitarians. Which, at this point, they seem to be, whoever the "they" are who constantly scrub the entry. The fact that all criticism is being constantly deleted from McCardle's entry is proof--in and of itself--that there's something very wrong going on here. A legitimate journalist wouldn't do this or condone having it done in their name. The only people I've known in my life who would do something like this were the members of CPUSA who I knew in college.

I haven't tried to add a Criticism section because it would be futile. Isn't there a way to kick this issue up a notch? Seriously, it's bad for Wikipedia. Ehkzu (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Ehkzu(talk)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Megan McArdle. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I would be cool with a teen murderer getting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."[edit]

On 14 Sep 2018, Megan McArdle attempted to justify appointing accused sexual assaulter Brentt Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court even if he did commit a violent sexual assault crime against Christine Blasey Ford when he was 17 and she was 15, and then categorically deny it when he was 53, by stating that she would be cool with appointing a teen murderer to the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1040684489712775169

Megan McArdle @asymmetricinfo: Replying to @finalflower @_mattwells: "I would be cool with a teen murderer getting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. I think there's good reason we expunge juvenile records, and would raise the expungement age to 21."

https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1040684489712775169

This speaks to Megan McArdle's character, and belongs in the section on her "Views".

Some of the replies:

Moth Hiss Gristle @spookperson: "dang I didn't realize the victims of rapes and murders don't have any long term, deeply effecting consequences as long as the perpetrator was a minor, thank you for educating me with your giant brain"

Pete Forester @pete_forester: "So who are your picks? Eric Harris? Dylan Klebold? Or maybe Dylann Roof?"

@robogreen: "it seems to me it would make a lot more sense to make Teen Murdering a requirement for all lifetime appointments. as a Libertarian, I like to take stances that almost seem to make sense but then when you go more than an inch deep are utterly insane, so this all checks out."

Kara @finalflower: "Can you really *understand* the law if you’re never stepped outside it for a few minutes?"

Brad Small @BradSmall: "This is one of the most revealing takes I’ve ever seen"

Swanie Simon @SwanieSimon: "Definition of MORALLY BANKRUPT: having or acting as if having no morals. A morally bankrupt politician tweeting: "I would be cool with a teen murderer getting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

Feminazgûl @jkyles10: "There's Little We Can Do to Prevent Another Massacre (and if Adam Lanza had survived I'd be cool with expunging his record and letting him sit on the Supreme Court) - A Smart Person"

Mike uǝɥoƆ @sutrofog: "Would you feel the same if he was pro choice?"

Seth Robison @seth410: "Endorsing child murder to own the libs."

Michael Hiltzik @hiltzikm: "The soft bigotry of low expectations, in a single tweet."

jerms @jermpolio: "Unless that juvenile crossed illegally"

Jonathan Vankin @jonvankin: "I think this sounds like great policy. Next time a SCOTUS seat comes open, let's add these guys to the list!" 4 Scary Serial Killer Teens: Who They Were, and What They Did. The people who appear on this list murdered before they could register to vote. What has to happen -- or not happen -- for these kids to kill?

Large Garbage Barge @animaggus: "Yeah... I don’t think anyone’s surprised that YOU would be cool with that..."

David Q @David_Quinones: "Dylann Klebold was wrong on Roe and he is wrong for this country. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸"

Carla Bond @carlabond: "How about if he lied about it when he was in his 50's?"

HipsterSmurf @HipsterSmurf: "Just throwing this out there but Erik Menendez is 48, has years of trial experience, and hasn't caused any problems in decades. I can't find where the constitution says a prisoner can't serve as a Supreme Court Justice."

Xardox (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that a tweet that generates a bunch of critical tweets in response is worthy of inclusion in this article. That kind of thing happens all the time on Twitter, especially from opinion journalists. If her tweet ends up being covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources, then I would consider adding it. Timefurtherout (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul[edit]

This might have been interesting at one time, but it entirely dated now. Nicmart (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megan_McArdle&oldid=1207900451"