Talk:Jude Wanniski

No degree?

Question: How is someone who did not hold a degree in Economics,considered an economist?

The late Mr.Wanniski held degrees in Political Science and Journalism. If he were a scientific commentator instead of a political commentator, would he have been considered a physicist even though he held no degree in Physics? I would'nt think so. He was no more qualified to hold an opinion on political economics than the average man on the street, but yet his "supply-side" theories on economics was not only hailed as a "new" theory but made a centerpiece of national economic policy by 3 administrations. His theories have never been submitted to peer review, nor have they been accepted as a legitimate branch of study. To give this man and his theories accolades is the height of academic dishonesty and intellectual folly.

---

This questions implies a rather acadamic centric mindset. It presumes that a degree from a recognised university is the only way to attain knowledge or credentials or credibilty within a field.

Karl Marx is known as a philosopher and an economist although he had a degree in Law.

Adam Smith studied moral philosophy but is renowned for his thinking on economics.

Issac Newton studied Mathematics but many would refer to him as a physist.

Albert Einstein held a diploma in Education. And yet he is also remembered as a physist.

James Lovelock is regarded as a scientist. I don't belive he holds a degree in science.

2005-09-03 Terjepetersen

This is a good point, but these thinkers are taken seriously. To be considered an economist, one should have peer-reviewed articles, and be taken seriously in your field. Krauthammer has a meical degree, but he also has a Pulitzer. To my knowledge, Wanniski has no peer reviewed publications, so he should by no means be considered an economist. I have edited the economist title--OneWorld22 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wanniski&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

---

It is a fallacy to credit Wanniski with the sole development of supply-side economics, and a still greater fallacy to argue whether or not supply-side theories deserve accolades. IMHO, it's neutral for us to describe the subject's background and allow the reader to determine what weight to lend to the theory.

Bruce Bartlett described the genesis of supply-side economics in his paper Supply-Side Economics: "Voodoo Economics" or Lasting Contribution?: "Much of the early work had been done by economists Paul Craig Roberts...and Norman Ture. Another key player was Jude Wanniski...who came to supply-side through the works of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. A lot of serious research underlay supply-side economics, much done by economists who would have rejected the supply-side label."

dpotter 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Supply side theory - trickle down - goes back to the 1800s, probably earlier. Something to do with sparrows eating seeds from horse manure.

Two Santa Claus Theory

Two Santa Claus Theory is a neologism associated only with Wanniski. Unless someone else uses this term, I recommend a merge. -- Perfecto 06:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

No argument here except that the Two-Santa article outweighs the Wanniski article, and would give the (incorrect) impression that Two-Santa was one of Wanniski's major works. Perhaps a merge should be delayed until some other portions of Wanniski have been developed?

dpotter 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I found it conventient to see an entry for the Two Santa Claus Theory.

I vote against the merge too --Lee Vonce 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kerry

The third link makes clear that Wanniski planned to vote for Kerry as of Oct. 27, 2004. Did he change his mind, or does a vote not count as an endorsement? St. Jimmy 05:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He endorsed Kerry

Someone mangled the page. I editted it. Feel free to improve my changes, but there is no doubt he endorsed Kerry in '04.

Golf Partner

As one of Jude's regular golf partners, and as someone who worked on the Bush re-elction campaign, I can assure you Jude definitly endorsed Kerry, this led to many long rounds of golf, trading barbs! (btw Jude was deadly with his handcrafted pecan wood putter!!)

I wish I was lucky enough to meet him. I read his work in WSJ regularly during the 70s and although I did not always agree with his conclusions admired his writing and reasoning.Paulmeisel 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No one cares. This is not a chat room. Jibal (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Two Santa Claus Theory

I've merged Two Santa Claus Theory to Jude Wanniski. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 09:51Z

Two Santa Claus Theory section needs another rewrite

While I personally applaud the attempts by editors Neoconsrfinished, and Huw Powell, to rewrite the Two Santa Clauses Theory section so that it describes some of the actual, damaging use to which the theory has been put (which was probably their reaction to Thom Hartmann today, noting on his show that this section has been rewritten to make it bland and hide how it's been used by Republicans), their new text is much more of a rant than an entry appropriate for an encyclopedia. I was going to rewrite this section further still, trying to incorporate their text into the earlier text, in order to remove the ranting parts of their text, but this might be a bigger job than I have time for at the moment, so I suggest someone else do it. I don't feel comfortable simply reverting the text, since that might just make the kind of rewrite I wanted to do, just get put off or not done at all.

JohnSawyer 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the section as POV vandalism which removed sourced information. This seems to be a pattern in Neoconsrfinished's edits, which I do not at all "applaud".--Atlan (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Laffer curve yet again.

Per discussions on Talk:Laffer_curve, Talk:Supply-side_economics and Talk:Arthur_Laffer, i believe that the edit "Numerous leading economists have rejected the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed" is inappropriate for this article. Its only marginally relevant to the Laffer curve itself and, as such, really not relevant to a quick overview of the Laffer curve. Bonewah (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess i should elaborate here, in addition to the concerns expressed on supply-side economics talk, that the edit is US centric, that it applies only to one particular time and one particular tax, that claiming that they majority of the economists surveyed "rejected" or disagreed with the Laffer curve is inaccurate, i think the edit should be removed from this article because this is not an article about the Laffer curve, it is about Jude Wanniski and, as such, any coverage of the Laffer curve should be a brief, high level overview, with any details covered in the laffer curve article, not here. The edit above is currently in the Laffer curve article and so is irrelevant here. Bonewah (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the Laffer Curve and his later connections to the Nation of Islam, the guy would be a complete nobody. Lipsquid (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The question isnt what Wanniski is know for, the question is, to what extent do we discuss the Laffer curve here, and what should that discussion entail. As discussed in supply side economics talk, this particular edit is a weak criticism at best, that only sort of applies to the Laffer curve, that only applies to the US, that only applies to Federal income taxes, that only applies to 2102 and doesnt really accurately describe what the source says, and its not really a reliable source anyway. Bonewah (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

To say that a nonpartisan academic group who writes peer-reviewed papers on economics with faculty members from Universities around the world is not a reliable source seems very odd. http://research.chicagobooth.edu/IGM/fellows/index.aspx Do you have a reason why you think they are not a reliable source? Lipsquid (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is only one small part of my concern here. You have seen all this before, please respond to the substance of my comments. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You listed many things, and it was unclear which was your real concern? Rather than saying a source you don't agree with is unreliable, which it is reliable, if you want to focus on whether the results of one study of the Laffer Curve is notable enough for inclusion in Jude Wanniski's article. Then I agree with you that it is not really noteworthy for this article and I won't complain if you remove that paragraph. Thank you for discussing the edit. Lipsquid (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

One more time, the criticism that this shouldn't be included because "it's US-centric" is ridiculous. Which country was Wanniski living in? Which country was he working in? Where is he actually known? Oh, that's right. The US. And since this is the idea that's he's most known for - even though it's not named after him he was it's most known promoter - it's obviously relevant. Volunteer Marek  16:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You conveniently forgot my numerous other concerns. Was he referring to only taxes in the US? No. Was he referring to only federal income tax? No? Did he in any way suggest that any tax reduction would automatically increase revenue? No. You have taken a criticism which is barley even a criticism, misconstrued it, then plastered it everywhere irrespective of its importance to the subject. This isnt something fundamental to the Laffer curve, its a poll of some economists about one tax at one time that only barely even mentions the Laffer curve, and several of those are comments that indicate an acceptance of the Laffer curve, not a "rejection of the empirical relevance" like we claim. But you know all of this, or you should, as you were a party to these conversations at Talk:Supply-side_economics, and yet here we are again, Just like Lipsquid, you have no problem ignoring what i have said in the past, ignoring what other editors agreed were legit concerns and forcing me to re-argue the same thing over and over. Well, i have news for you, im not going to "just drop it" just because you choose to be obtuse and waste my time. That tactic isnt going to work. Bonewah (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not interested in having my time wasted on pointless discussion with somebody who will obviously not be convinced no matter what. As of right now, I'm not the only one disagreeing with you. So consensus is against you. If you want, you can start an RfC and we can discuss it with others. Volunteer Marek  14:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC on description of the Laffer curve

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The description of the Laffer curve should not include the proposed text or mention of the poll. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Should the description of the Laffer curve in the section 'Lower taxes' make reference to an IGM poll of economists taken in 2012? If so, how should that poll be described? We are currently using the following text

Numerous leading economists have rejected the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed.

References

Please note, similar edits and discussions exist on Art Laffer:

Numerous leading economists have rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to current federal US income taxes in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed. In response to this survey question, Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago said, “That’s a Laffer.”

Supply-side economics:

In 2012, a majority of economists surveyed rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut would apply to federal US income taxes of the time in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” none of economists surveyed by the University of Chicago agreed. 35% agreed with the statement "a cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would lead to higher GDP within five years than without the tax cut."

and the Laffer curve

In 2012, economists surveyed by the University of Chicago rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to federal US income taxes of the time in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” none of the economists surveyed agreed and 71% disagreed.

Bonewah (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of this material for the following reasons. (TL:DR version, we are misrepresenting the source here and its too obscure a reference for a summary)

• At least in the case of the edits here on Jude Wnniski, what we have now is pretty clearly wp:OR. Nowhere does the source cited ask the question "Do you reject the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States?" They only ask if "A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut." Which is not the same thing. No where in the article cited do "96% of economists surveyed" say anything like what we say here. Moreover, the Laffer curve isnt even directly mentioned in the question, it only appears in the title of this section and in some of the responses, some of which clearly do not "reject the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve". Consider Robert Hall's response "In addition, few studies suggest we are already at the max of the Laffer curve, though we may be close." or Edward Lazear "This is the Laffer curve issue. There is little (if any) evidence that rates exceed revenue-maximizing levels. See Mankiw, Feldstein." Neither of those two sound like they are rejecting the relevance of the Laffer curve, and assuming that the rest of the economists surveyed do is clear OR.
• its citation's survey is highly specific to one tax (federal income tax), in one place (The US), at one time (2012). Thats a pretty US specific data point for a general discussion of the matter, although that might be appropriate for inclusion in the article about the Laffer curve, or Supply-side economics, its absurd to include it here in Jude Wanniski or Art Laffer.
• Per above, Its too obscure to include here (or in Art Laffer) in a bio of a guy whos only connection to it is that he popularized the term. We have only three lines about the laffer curve here, one of which is a poll which doesnt really say what we claim and is only about one tax in one place at one particular time. Its a bit like saying that "henry Ford founded Ford Motor company, popularized many methods of mass production, and in 2012 97% of some people surveyed didnt like Ford compact cars sold in the US." Just like here, including a specific criticism about the subject in a quick summary is ham fisted and out of place. Again, this is different from what we might include in the Laffer curve page itself or supply side economic which had a fair discussion about this topic, hence the different wordings you see.
• expanding on my first point, even if we accept that this is not OR, we are misconstruing what the source actually says. Most of the economists surveyed didnt comment on the Laffer curve per se, only saying agree or disagree. Of the 40 economists listed, only 12 even commented at all, only 4 or 5 of the comments unequivocally reject the Laffer curve (maybe slightly more depending on how you read them). There is no reason to believe that those who disagree necessarily reject the Laffer curve. Of the ones that did comment 5 or 6 responded in such a way as to indicate that they actually accept the Laffer curve despite 5 of them responding disagree to the question.

remember, this (here and at Art Laffer)is a quick summary of the Laffer curve not an in depth discussion. Readers can click the link to learn more. Consider what we have now:

Wanniski was instrumental in popularizing the ideas of lower tax rates embodied in the "Laffer Curve," and was present in 1974 when Arthur Laffer drew the curve on the famous napkin for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Over the years, Wanniski repeatedly emphasized high tax rates as the cause of poverty in Africa. Wanniski collected details about the tax structures of various countries in Africa and explained how they were limiting the progress of the poor. These observations ended up as part of an episode of The West Wing.

Numerous leading economists have rejected the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed.

Doesnt the last sentence seem a bit out of place? Looking at it now, the second sentence should probably be removed as well.

Its even more glaring at Art Laffer: (refs removed)

Main article: Laffer curve

Although he does not claim to have invented the Laffer curve concept (Laffer, 2004), it was popularized with policy-makers following an afternoon meeting with Nixon/Ford Administration officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1974 in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate his argument. The term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski, who was also present. The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes.

A simplified view of the theory is that tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%, and somewhere in between 0% and 100% is a tax rate which maximizes total revenue. Laffer's postulate was that the tax rate that maximizes revenue was at a much lower level than previously believed: so low that current tax rates were above the level where revenue is maximized.

Numerous leading economists have rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to current federal US income taxes in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed. In response to this survey question, Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago said, “That’s a Laffer.”

"The first two sentences accurately sum up the Laffer curve's history and concept. The third points out that some poll of some economists kinda sorta disagrees with it, when applied to one specific tax at one time in one country.

I feel that the optimal text for this issue will likely be different for supply side economics and the Laffer curve as opposed to the bios of Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski, but in the interest of a centralized discussion, i started the RfC here to help resolve the deadlock above. There are similar discussions at the three other pages I mentioned. Bonewah (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• strongest oppose inclusion the poll was not "Are Jude Wanniski's claims about taxes valid or not?" - utilizing a source completely out of context , particularly in an article about a living person is completely inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is NOT an article about a living person. Also, Wanniski is the one who popularized the idea of the Laffer curve, hence something about its validity certainly belongs in the article. Volunteer Marek  21:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • You do realise this is Jude Wanniski's article, right? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. Volunteer Marek  04:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• strongest agreement for inclusion Subject of article is only notable for Laffer Curve. Why not just nominate the whole article for deletion? Lipsquid (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion the source makes no mention of Wanniski and took place nearly a decade after Wanniski's death (presumably his career ended significantly before that) If there was a source tying this poll to Wanniski then it would warrant inclusion but otherwise I believe it is original research. As I have said on other talk pages, the poll applies only to federal income taxes at that particular time and so does not mean that the Laffer curve does not work in general Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion That 96% of "top" economists disagree with the question statement is relevant, interesting and important. Better yet would be to include the reference's bottom right graph showing that. (I'm not an economist though so those are layperson views.) Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question, do you think its interesting and important enough that it should be included in a short summary in an article that is only tangentially related to the Laffer Curve, such as this one? Again, what winds up on the Laffer curve page might be different than what winds up on this biography. Also relevant is that %96 of top economists did not really disagree, thats one disputed interpretation of the source. Bonewah (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: the article is not about the Laffer curve, even if the subject is notable partly for his opinions on it, so detailed commentary and criticism of it easily constitutes WP:COATRACK. This may (or may not, due to the extensive arguments presented above) be appropriate in articles specifically about the Laffer curve, although care should be taken not to give excessive WP:WEIGHT to the situation in the United States. LjL (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion Directed here by rfc bot. This appears to be COATRACK and not an appropriate addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Inclusion Called by bot. Per WP:FRINGE, fringe views (the idea that cutting taxes increases revenues is clearly fringe) should always be put into context, with the mainstream view given prominent place, to prevent the danger of creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Darx9url (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I dont believe that the Laffer curve is a fringe view, but even if it were, the citation in question does not support that claim. Bonewah (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Laffer curve is not a fringe view. Note that it argues that for some tax rates that cutting tax rates may increase revenue e.g. cutting taxes from 100% to 90% will probably lead to an increase in economic activity. The Laffer curve does not say that cutting taxes will always lead to an increase in revenue, indeed it posits that there is one (or multiple) tax rates which maximise revenue and lowering rates below this will lead to a decrease in revenue Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Clearly fringe"? Look, coming to RfC by bot calls is all well and good, but perhaps read up a tiny bit about the subject before decreeing... The Laffer curve is obviously not "fringe"; what may be in question is at which point in the curve lowering taxation stops yielding higher revenues (and certainly, it could be argued that in many countries today, we're already lower than that on the curve, but how does that invalidate the curve itself?) LjL (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Folks, can you actually address what the user said not what you pretend they said? You know, read up a tiny bit of their comment? They didn't say the Laffer curve was a fringe view. They explicitly state that "the idea that cutting taxes increases revenues is clearly fringe". Which it is. And that's actually exactly why we need something in the article about the fact that it's fringe. Volunteer Marek  19:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "cutting taxes always increases revenues" is a fringe view, but no one on this page has suggested that it is true. I therefore assumed that Darx9url was referring to the Laffer curve. If Darx9url wishes to correct me and point me to where in the article/talk page anyone has suggested this, then that is up to them Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The citation in question does not support that claims made in the article, full stop. WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with it. Bonewah (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed When you get weasel phrases like "Numerous leading economists" which don't include legitimate serious references or citations, such claims should not be included. The reference provided isn't solid enough to support the idiot emotive rhetoric. Damotclese (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bonewah, Damotclese & TheRedPenOfDoom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This RfC should apply to at least the Art Laffer article, plus possibly the supply side economics and the Laffer curve articles as well

@TheRedPenOfDoom, Volunteer Marek, Lipsquid, Absolutelypuremilk, DanielVallstrom, LjL, and Capitalismojo: @Darx9url, Damotclese, and FoCuSandLeArN: It is my belief that whatever is decided here should apply to the other three articles i named in both the RfC and this subsection. At least in the case of the Art Laffer article, the content is exactly the same and the same objections apply there as here. I am going to ping everyone who has commented here in case there is some objection. If you do have an objection, please spell out here what exactly you see as the issue so we can resolve it. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong article, nothing to discuss here. If you want an RfC for an article, open it on that article's talk page. The format and general requirements are laid out on this page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Lipsquid (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It may be relevant to this RfC's outcome to mention that on Laffer curve, the passage in question has been reinstated again (into the lead section!) after some time, under the pretence of an "ungoing edit war" about it. This is even though there seemed to be agreement to leave it out (including by the editor reinstating it now, at least from the lede). Let's please determine whether this RfC's consensus applies. LjL (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion closed, if you want an RfC on another page open it there. Lipsquid (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Or you could open an RfC to include that material like WP:ONUS clearly states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Or you could stop trying to WP:GAME wikipedia rules and policies to try and get your way at all costs. This RfC does NOT and NEVER has applied to other articles. Stop being obstinate. At some point it becomes very disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me see if i understand you fully. After an RfC covering this topic was closed with a decision of 'remove', you feel that you should be able to unilaterally re-add that very same material and that its incumbent on other editors to argue for its removal and that you should not have to make any effort to gain consensus to re-add this material despite WP:ONUS saying the exact opposite. And anyone who says that you should do anything at all to gain consensus before adding this material is "gaming the system". Bonewah (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes and you need to re-read WP:ONUS. Having consensus that information is not useful or constructive in one article, does not mean that the same sourced content is now assumed not to be constructive in every topic on Wikipedia. That would be insane. The RfC made its decision and the information is not in the article. No one has added it back so this is all rather pointless at this time. Lipsquid (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jude Wanniski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723021220/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/100best/100_books.html to http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)