Talk:Andrei Shleifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the importance scale

I moved the page's old content (without copyright infringements) to Andrei Shleifer/Temp. I will add some information about the settlement. Martg76 2 July 2005 07:21 (UTC)

On the user "Evista" - This user has only edited the Andrei Shleifer case and is probably close to the person or is indeed him. What I object to is the user has constantly deleted entries that have received coverage in the papers and transforming it into some form of legalese. While it is admirable of the user for putting Shleifer in a better light, it does not tell the full picture. Evista's parochialism is showing. Institutional Investor published a link to an investigative article which contained 30 pages on the Shleifer affair. Why Evista would delete this particular article is concerning. The other links of the articles are usually 1 or 2 pages long but the one with 30 pages on Shleifer being deleted? Now that's just choosing history whichever suits the user. Not very encyclopedic at all. Nor does it show much for the academic integrity of Shleifer and/or his supporters.

---

I'm not sure who wrote the above statement. In any case, I apologize if some of the edits were coming across as legalese as opposed to working on accuracy, but, for example, there was no finding of Harvard or Shleifer liable for treble damages. The references and quotes from the Institutional Investor article in the paragraph seemed more designed to inflame as opposed to inform. --Evista 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He lost the case, but let's be precise

I think we should be careful in the controversy segment, but we needn't try to whitewash what happened. If necessary for clarity, let's add material rather than add legalese!Smallbones 07:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)