Talk:Anna Schwartz

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

About deletion of text

Someone deleted the text that had been posted, on the Bank of England's discovery that the link between money and prices used data that was built on unsolid foundations, denouncing it as "rubbish". This is just plain thoughtless. If this person took the slightest trobule to research recent news sources he would instantly see that this fact has only recently been discovered. If you still feel it to be 'rubbish', please provide fact-based reasoning of this and list it as an alternative point of view. Deleting content with just the description "obviously rubbish" is not helpful. Thanks, Cx--83.105.37.25 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched for the recently identified piece of information that suggests this research was built on unsolid foundations but not yet identified any justification. Can Cx above provide pointers to the recent evidence? Without it I'd argue for removing the sentence. Tglaisyer 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the suggestion above I've searched google for sources suggesting Friedman and Schwartz were "fudging the periods" when prices were controlled and found no reference. As a result I am going to remove the sentence on the basis that without a citation it is not appropriate to include. If the user above has a citation then I would suggest that it is added to this talk page and a proposed wording suggested. Since the money prices link is so central to Schwartz's work and the word 'fudging' suggests weak scholarship I feel that a citation that supports such a critical stance is included. Tglaisyer

Style

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but this article seems as if written for a 10th grade history class. Stylistically, I think it could use some work... 71.194.163.223 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add a tag, until I saw yours! - Matthew238 (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are economists now considered scientists for the sake of categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.121.41 (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - good catch. Changed to "social scientists". Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anna Schwartz. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaes.org/about/presidents.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111021541/http://cepa.newschool.edu:80/het/profiles/schwartz.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/schwartz.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226071030/http://www.eh.net:80/bookreviews/library/rockoff.shtml to http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/rockoff.shtml
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Workpaper/2003/wp03-18.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]