Talk:Zachary Karabell

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sageicedlatte (article contribs).

he would tell you himself that he is a communist

not a single conservative would believe a single thing this guy says - where in his article does it say that he is a communist? - otherwise this is just a fluff piece for self promotion

where is the neutral viewpoint that is critical to everything this article attempts as propaganda to promote? --70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this communist fanboy, the communism of China makes them more productive than the capitalist US - please tell that to the millions killed by Mao Mr. Karabell! The answer to the title of the following article by Mr. Karabell, Why is China's stimulus working so much better than ours?, is because they have millions murdered to get there--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

whomever wrote up his article it says he has a phd from harvard and yet it does not say in what area of study --- my question is is it in underwater basket weaving or the history of communism?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

i notice he is giving stock picks on cnbc --- so he has a degree in finance or economics? --- i bet not--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I came to this article to find out about his economics credentials after reading an article in which he misstated Say's Law and showed that he clearly has no understanding of basic economics principles like supply and demand. Would really appreciate it if someone could source those. 130.15.87.48 (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Too much puff

I just made a substantial pass over the lead to reign in the puff and dewallify the prose. Many inline exlinks removed. We really don't need to know his every role at the non-notable Fred Alger, or every auspicious newspaper who has ever published one of his commentaries.

I feel the lead is still on the generous side, and that perhaps much about his books would better belong in a books subsection. — MaxEnt 16:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article reads as if it was written for promotional purposes.

Organization and rewording

After looking over this page and comparing it to other biographies of living persons pages, I found that this is worded very incorrectly and is seeming like it's purely a page for promotional purposes like user MaxEnt above me has already said. I'm planning on reorganizing this page over the next few weeks to make it look more like a biographical page should be. These edits will mainly take place in a sandbox that I will link down below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageicedlatte (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the link for the sandbox I previously mentioned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sageicedlatte/sandboxSageicedlatte (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I will be using Elizabeth II and WP:BLP for the organization portion of the editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageicedlatte (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I realized that I should base my example article on an article about a living author instead of Queen Elizabeth II, so I will instead be using Stephen King for my editing.Sageicedlatte (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead has way too much information that should be distributed throughout the article instead of being in the lead. If this article is to look more like the biography of another living author like Stephen King, the section organizations should look like:

• Life
• Education (if anyone can find notable things about his education)
• Career
• Current Works
• Publications
• Notes
• References
• Bibliography
• External Links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageicedlatte (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing external link

I think that the link below should be deleted because it just leads directly to a website whose URL is the person's name. This could be more evidence that the article may have been written with promotional intentions:

• River Twice Research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageicedlatte (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)