Talk:Paul Krugman: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We can surely do better! Could we aim for a "show, don't tell" - i.e. show where he is wrong, ideally by linking and/or quoting from articles that criticize him, instead of just blankly stating that he is incompetent? [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 17:43, 14 November 2010 (CST) | We can surely do better! Could we aim for a "show, don't tell" - i.e. show where he is wrong, ideally by linking and/or quoting from articles that criticize him, instead of just blankly stating that he is incompetent? [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 17:43, 14 November 2010 (CST) | ||
Seconded. Article sounds editorial, not factual, nor are the opinions even backed up with facts. A reader stumbling upon this article would naturally conclude that the whole wiki is heavily biased and unsupported by evidence. | Seconded. Article sounds editorial, not factual, nor are the opinions even backed up with facts. A reader stumbling upon this article would naturally conclude that the whole wiki is heavily biased and unsupported by evidence. [[Special:Contributions/219.101.41.227|219.101.41.227]] 22:29, 14 November 2010 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 04:29, 15 November 2010
We can surely do better! Could we aim for a "show, don't tell" - i.e. show where he is wrong, ideally by linking and/or quoting from articles that criticize him, instead of just blankly stating that he is incompetent? Pestergaines 17:43, 14 November 2010 (CST)
Seconded. Article sounds editorial, not factual, nor are the opinions even backed up with facts. A reader stumbling upon this article would naturally conclude that the whole wiki is heavily biased and unsupported by evidence. 219.101.41.227 22:29, 14 November 2010 (CST)