Talk:Noreena Hertz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sexy

Why is it necessary to put the phrase: "..and also as someone who makes the anti-globalisation movement more sexy." in the article? I have to admit Dr. Hertz is quite attractive, but I think the article should focus on her life, her books and her ideas, not her appearance. RaF — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaF (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 October 2005‎

Klein

The comparison to Naomi Klein is silly, Klein is a doctrinaire leftist, Hertz is a serious academic who objects to some aspects of globalization but does recognize the benefit of the free market.63.205.151.68 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't making the comparison, the UK media is - that's why the sentence is written that way and has references. Also please avoid point-of-view statements e.g. calling Klein irrational and extreme Bwithh 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Books

"has written several popular books from that experience; Russian Business Relationships in the Wake of Reform, The Debt Threat: How Debt Is Destroying the Developing World, The Silent Takeover and IOU - the Story of the Debt" This is highly misleading. Firstly, 'The Debt Threat' and 'IOU' are one and the same book. Secondly, 'Russian Business Relationships in the Wake of Reform' is a re-working of her Ph.D. thesis - not exactly a 'popular' book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.40.129 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 March 2006‎

Centre-left?

I would describe her as more of a "compassionate-neoliberalist". 84.48.58.93 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.81.190 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Either way, please provide some kind of source like a book or a newspaper article to back your view up. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for "centre-left"? This kind of label needs a source, particularly when used in the lead. Warofdreams talk 00:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to see it come out. It was put in during the IP attack blizzard following her appearance on QT - I left it because it wasn't overtly vandalistic like the others. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over Question Time

Hertz's partner, the controller of BBC1, Danny Cohen, was accused of nepotism after Hertz appeared on the stations flagship politics show 'Question Time'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiblue1285 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which sources are the basis of this "accusation"? Lots of vandalism last night following Hertz's appearance on BBC1 Question Time, so the article has been semi-protected for a week. If you do not have an account, or only recently registered, please discuss the change you want to make to the article here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of context Amazon quote

A previous editor used the Amazon website to provide this apparent quotation from a review of The Silent Takeover in The Times: "In this book, which The Times said is "destined to leave a mark on our times"[1], Hertz warned that unregulated markets, corporate greed, and over-powerful financial institutions would have serious global consequences that would impact most heavily on the ordinary citizen." As noted in my edit summary, I checked the Amazon website and found that phrase reported there, annotated (The Times 2002-07-11). I searched that day's copy of The Times and found no mention of the book or the author. The quote instead appears in 2001, ("Every generation of revolutionaries has its Garibaldi or Hanoi Jane." 17 July 2001. The Times p.2) and its context is thus: "While [Naomi] Klein, [Noreena] Hertz and [George] Monbiot lack the headline-grabbing, front-page stealing appeal of a [Daniel] Cohn-Bendit or a [Jane] Fonda, they are more intellectually challenging. And, therefore, possibly destined to leave a more lasting mark on our times than the pheremone whiff left behind by Danny the Red or Hanoi Jane." Not a review of the book, and not a solo review of the author. Keri (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Silent Takeover published 2001

Second time I've had to correct this: the book was first published in 2001 by William Heinemann. It seems some editors have the later imprint from 2002. Or believe everything written on Amazon (see above). See for eg this May 2001 review in The Guardian. Keri (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear bias throughout the article

This article is characterised by a biased and clearly partial stance throughout. Rather than any attempt at a detailed independent summary of her position, the article is dominated a selected mix of public responses. There is no hint, for instance, that these responses, carefully assembled at first in the opening section, come without exception from intellectual sources either further to the left, such as Paul Kingsnorth or Ali, or from an economically conservative position , such as Howard Davies of the CBI ; and this apparent alliance of views appears all the more effective because none of the political stances of these responders is mentioned at any stage. The same obvious critical bias runs throughout later sections, and particularly the closing section  ; the reason , as mentioned, appears to be a strange alliance of orthodox Left and economically conservative perspectives and motivations in building up the article, resulting in a clearly biased, exclusively critical narrative that contravenes N:POV, and whose stance has been missed by other editors. As a result I am putting a { pov } tag on the article.

81.147.131.67 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The article reports the critical responses to her books from both left and right, and from multiple, credible critics writing in reliable sources - The Independent, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The New Statesman etc. These are hardly fringe views. Perhaps the books aren't as good as you think they are. Keri (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the IP has a point. Yes the various assembled criticism are from reliable sources and certainly should be mentioned. However given from reviews/articles I've read elsewhere (in particular the German press), I can't shake the feeling that these criticism are cherry-picked and not all representative for the overall reception of her book(s). Assuming that this is indeed the case, it does represent a NPOV issue. The description of the reception needs to be representative summary and not just a cherry picked selection of reputable negative reviews.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

By all means add more reviews from reliable sources, even if they are not English language. Keri (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)