Talk:Paul Krugman: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I agree. No one else had started the page so I decided to, and I couldn't resist a dig.[[User:SamPat|SamPat]] 22:58, 14 November 2010 (CST) | I agree. No one else had started the page so I decided to, and I couldn't resist a dig.[[User:SamPat|SamPat]] 22:58, 14 November 2010 (CST) | ||
I agree as well, this reminds me of the one time I checked out Conservapedia (sp?). It took about two seconds for me to realize it was heavily biased and went much further than statement of facts. Can we just kill the sentence about the inability to understand concepts and inflation? [[User:M.detrinquelague|M.detrinquelague]] 08:28, 15 November 2010 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 14:28, 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. "...repeatedly display an inability to grasp fundamental economic concepts" 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)
I agree. No one else had started the page so I decided to, and I couldn't resist a dig.SamPat 22:58, 14 November 2010 (CST)
I agree as well, this reminds me of the one time I checked out Conservapedia (sp?). It took about two seconds for me to realize it was heavily biased and went much further than statement of facts. Can we just kill the sentence about the inability to understand concepts and inflation? M.detrinquelague 08:28, 15 November 2010 (CST)