Talk:John Maynard Keynes/Archive 3

Neutrality problems for GA status
The "Versailles peace conference" and "In the 1920s" sections do not have one single reference. There are many other sentences/paragraphs that also don't have them. Taking into account the neutrality disputes and the lack of citations, I wouldn't think this article has a chance of a GA status. It's a pity, because it's a really interesting article.
 * Verifiability
 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
 * Cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, like .--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! Ive added some refs to those sections, and for Versailles there's over 20 references in the main article.   Ive tried to avoid too many references for non controversial points that are well known facts so as to avoid clutter - there is so much to say about Keynes & so little room in an 82k article.  I've added another non Keynesian reference to the disputed section - if no one reverts it in the next few days, I'll ask Vision Thing if he minds the tag being removed.  Not that I would object to being reverted as I kind of feel the section is now biased against Keynes, and its more important for the article to be NPOV than to get it promoted to GA status. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Influences/influenced/opposed
I changed some of the more glaring ones. Influenced by *Marx*? Keynes dismissal of Marx was consistent and thoroughgoing. How did he "influence" Gesell?--especially since he acknowledged Gesell's (sideways) contributions to his own thought in the General Theory. Selection of so-called new-Keynesians is selective, maybe someone else wishes to be appropriately encyclopedic, maybe someone who can feel comfortable deciding if e.g. Richard Kahn "influenced" or was "influenced by" Keynes. As for "influenced by" Smith and Ricardo--well, I suppose Einstein was influenced by Newton, I'm just not sure I'd bother mentioning it, but oh well...Doprendek (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks i guess youre right about Gesell, and we should give the info box some attention before putting this article up for FAC. In Skidelskys bio it says Keynes wasnt so dismissive of Marx until he personally visited Russia and saw how dismal things were there. On the first page of Shaw's Keynesian Economics: The Permanent Revolution it says that one of Keynes unique achievements was to reconcile Smith and Marx, as he synthesised ideas from both great economists, so there is probaby a case for keeping those two as influences. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, why isn't F.A> Hayek listed as opposed to Keynes? Theirs was the classic battle of conflicting ideas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npalumbo58 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why there is nothing in the Critiques Sections outside Bourgeois Economics

 * 1) Because the various mentions in passing of the supposed saving of Capitalism, JMKs intent to refute Marxist theory, etc. are presumed to cover the matter.
 * 2) Because bourgeois, i.e. capitalist economics, is a received perspective which even now at this late stage, only a relatively few economists in the Anglo-Saxon world dare look beyond.
 * 3) Finally, the actual work of summarizing the work of, e.g. Mathematical Economics that does¹ look beyond this restricted world view to general economic reality independent of the current mode of production, crises in which, a topic central to this article, can really only have a thorough scientific treatment when that basis, mode of production, is not taken as a given, that editorial work has not been and likely will not be done. It would not violate OR since such sources are available, but would require that the world view alluded to and taken as a given be looked beyond, you know like before it has completely and utterly been discredited by reality.

So if you came here looking for something beyond the standard, as Paul Krugman in a current NYT article recounts "Freshwater" and "Saltwater" US economic cant, as I did, I believe the above is the reason you won't find it. 71.186.179.146 (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC) ¹ viz: that done in 70s/80s in Japan, google fujimori morishima yamaguchi, e.g:, the chinese expat Wen Li currently , etc..


 * Hi, when I get round to exspanding the Resurgence article I plan to add this link from countercurrents which critiques the resurgence from a ultra progressive / Marxist perspective. If you're thinking there should be earlier left wing criticisms please let us know what you have in mind or add them to the article yourself.  I know Keynes was heavilly criticised from the left in the 30s and 40s and have alluded to that in the article,  but Im not really aware of any sutiable specific criticisms to add. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well take it you mean earlier than March 2009, the date on that article. Most of the polemics in response to Keynes would be prior to that. The stuff today is likely to be various flavors of weak and/or tired sauce and a really good treatment would run up against OR and defenders of the existing order who are legion in their patrol of articles like this. Did do some cleanup on Crisis (Marxian) which you might note in a See Also &sect;. Not aware of the use of the term "Ultra Progressive" but I like it. It somehow avoids the semantic baggage and historical connotation of the term "Ultra Left" as designated by Lenin and others. 71.186.179.146 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting article I'll try to think of a way to link to it. Maybe there's a source to link Keynes's view that "a capital rich society risks the fate of Midas"  to the Marx quote  about too much capital being a barrier to capitalist production.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh pic
Here's a source that supports the caption for the pic: Indian Times however I dont think we need to add it to the article as the rules for OR are relaxed for pics?


 * Unfortunately the link does not work. I don't think rules are relaxed for captions, only for graphics and photos. If we claim that Singh spoke strongly in favor of Keynesian stimulus, we should have a cite for it. There are many who have been on record doing so, Gordon Brown for instance, it might be better to use his photo instead. Here's a link to a suitable article . LK (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Think the link should work now, also heres a link with a transcript of the speach. Indian Times. I agree Mr Brown has probably done more than anyone to shape the global responce, but he's not my first choice as almost all the other pics are Anglo Saxon. I partly choose this pic in responce to the globalise tag someone put on, and I think its good to have a leader from a bric country as it reflects the recent shift of financial power from west to east. A great alternative would be Zhou Xiaochuan as he resurected Keynes suggstion for a Bancour, but I couldnt find a useable pic for him. Hu Jintao would also be good as China and the US are recognised by the FT as the two champions of fiscal stimulus, and proportionatly China's stimulus is the largest. But whatever pic you decide is fine with me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of misogyny and Churchil quote.
Im going to remove the Churchil quote mainly for the sake of trimming less essential information. Someone seems to have removed the original ref and tagged it. Its easy to source, but theres different versions of the quote and its hard to be sure which is correct, plus I don’t feel it adds much to understanding the subject.

For the misogyny accusation, the source doesn’t actually say Keynes has been accused of misogyny, it merely provide the anti female quote as an example of his sometimes wild language. All Bios in which Ive seen mention on Keynes stance re women are unanimous he supported feminist causes, at least to a moderate degree. Ive not seen Keynes being accused of misogyny even in right wing propaganda that goes all out to discredit him. True the quote is on the face of it anti woman. However it’s a single quote from early years from private correspondence. Young men and adolescents very frequently make anti women comment in all male company – for example I remember pretty much everyone in my footie team used to in after match drinks – it doesn’t mean the comments really reflect the views. Unless a good source accuses Keynes of being misogynistic, its undue weight to suggest its been done in the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Add this quote?
This website, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Excerpts/Books_by_Subject.html, says, about halfway down, that Keynes said "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all." Could you add that quote to this article please? Stars4change (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That quotation appears to be fabricated. See here for an analysis: LK (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keynes did actually say things along those lines, in different words but perhaps even more radical, in his Economic prospects for our Grandchildren

...The love of money as a possession – as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life – will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. All kinds of social customs and economic practices, affecting the distribution of wealth and of economic rewards and penalties, which we now maintain at all costs, however distasteful and unjust they may be in themselves, because they are tremendously useful in promoting the accumulation of capital, we shall then be free, at last, to discard..... pace at which we can reach our destination of economic bliss will be governed by four things – our power to control population, our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions, our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science .....But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not

I think we're now begining to see some of the conditions Keynes predicted come to pass, while there's still poverty and unemployment, this is increasingly due to imbalances and poor economic organisation rather than lack of capital and infrastructure, for example there is huge over capacity in China and the US. I might double check what some of the recent Keynes books have said about this and maybe add a section? PS - Great to see you on my watchlist again LK, happy new year to you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Wow, he said a hundred years & it's now been about a hundred years, now is the time when we can use technology to set the whole world on the correct path (just barely in time) by eliminating all harmful work & still end poverty, & save the earth.  A billion heads are better than one, so if anyone can find that quote in any of Keynes' works, please come here & let us know ASAP.  Thanks. Stars4change (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Keynes a socialist?
I thought he was a capitalist economist but to my surprise he's included in the socialist wikiproject. Why? TMLutas (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: no. However, I don't think a person has to be a socialist in order to be covered by Wikiproject Socialism. As long as what the person did somehow relates to socialism, I guess she or he can be included in that wikiproject. UBER  ( talk ) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes about as much sense as the Mormon's baptising John Paul II (which they did, multiple times, and rescinded it, multiple times when the catholics found out). All modern economics somehow relates to socialism, either pro or contra. At a certain point, the connection is too tenuous to make sense or you might as well just tag all the articles in wikipedia. There should be a rule that makes sense as to what the limits are. Common sense tells me that Keynes should be beyond the limits. What's the other side of the story? TMLutas (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not being a member of Wikiproject Socialism, I really don't know their guidelines for inclusion. I'd be fine with removing Keynes if you really insist on it. UBER  ( talk ) 05:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the problem here the fact that in some places, particularly the USA, the word socialist has strong negative connotations, something quite different from the case in the UK, Keynes' place of birth? Socialist can be a simple "unflavoured" descriptor of how someone's views fitted into the economic spectrum of that person's time. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this conversation should be attributed to that phenomenon in the US. Keynes was the quintessential modern liberal economist. He was a member of the Liberal Party. So in terms of politics and economics, he fell on the liberal center-left, and it remains difficult to justify his inclusion in Wikiproject Socialism. I don't care either way. UBER  ( talk ) 05:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He was not a socialist and his policies were followed by political parties across the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure some of the free-marketeers of his time saw him and described him as socialist.


 * It's at this point of discussions like this that I realise how difficult (and sometimes silly) it is to try to rigidly place political/economic labels on people. I think I will now politely withdraw. Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've ended the drama and removed him from Wikiproject Socialism. If someone feels I acted incorrectly, feel free to revert me. UBER ( talk ) 06:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment & Growth Statement incorrect
Good work on this article, hopefully this helps:

In the Neo-Keynesian economics section of the article, it states that "By the 1950s, Keynesian policies were adopted by almost the entire developed world and similar measures for a mixed economy were used by many developing nations. By then, Keynes's views on the economy had become mainstream in the world's universities. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Europe, the United States and Japan enjoyed considerably lower unemployment and higher growth than they have had before or since. "

This is a factually incorrect statement with regards to the US. I have not yet checked data on Europe or Japan. (I referenced the unemployment data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peace01234 and GDP growth from the census)

Unemployment averaged 4.51% for the 50's, 4.78% in the 60's, and 4.65% for the two decades together. While the 50's did enjoy the lowest unemployment of any decade from 1890-today, the 1900's averaged 4.61% unemployment. The 40's could arguably boast the absolute lowest unemployment rate if we throw out 1940 as an outlier (i.e. group it with the depression years of the 30's). If we do that, then the 40's averaged 4.12%. The year of lowest unemployment was 1944 with 1.2%.

Also, if we factor in the noise in the unemployment signal, we see that the overall unemployment for the 50's and 60's are equivalent to nearly every other decade, excepting the 1890's and 1930's. Unemployment hovers around 5% with a very disturbing upward trend from 1945 to today.

When looking at growth, if you chart the change in GDP over time in the US, it is fairly steady (though volatile) at 4% from 1800 - 1900. From 1900 to 1932, GDP growth slowly declines. From 1933 to 1944, growth trends sharply higher, then resumes a downward trend from 1945 to today. GDP growth in the 50's and 60's hovers around - guess what? - 4% with an average of 4.31%.

The statement also implies a causal link between good economic times and Keynesian economic policy that is not warranted. In fact the very disturbing trends in unemployment and growth from 1945 to today would imply the opposite. (But correlation does not mean cause!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.219.171 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment and the good analyses. I've changed the line in question accordingly. To help show why the evidence doesnt support further change the article in the direction youre suggesting, here's some additional points to consider.


 * In the special case of the USA, according to Skidelsksy Keynesians gained ascendancy in the US administration as early as 1939. And anyway the massive deficit spending that restored full employment in the early 40s can be viewed as a strong practical demonstration of Keynesian theory. What was exceptional after WWII is that it is the only major war since capitalism began that wasnt followed by a wide spread recession.  For the purposes of discussing Keynes,  its probably best not to draw the line at 1945,  but to compare the Keynesian Bretton Woods period that spanned the 50s & 60s with the free market Washington consensus that lasted from the 1980s - 2009.  If you look at the table over at 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, sourced ultimately from IMF figures,   you can see that for much of the world there is a massive difference in terms of unemployment. Admittedly  the US didnt see as big a difference as elsewhere. But the proportion of unemployed still increased by about 20% , too big to be considered noise.  Similarly with growth, the US fall was tiny compared to say Japan that fell from 8% to 2%, but still if US growth had continued at 2.2% for the Washington consensus period  instead of the 1.9% it fell to you guys would be on average about 10% richer!


 * The US does seem to have been a special case in the 19th century with its gilded age, but generally global growth was lower for the world even the "golden" 1870 - 1914 period. And before 1870 global growth was very low, as even the anti Keynesian historian Nial Ferguson admits   ( "the compound annual growth was nearly thirteen times higher between 1870 - 1998 than it was between 1500 - 1870." - War of the World, Introduction)  Before we started to benefit from reasonably sized government as taxation  began to rise with the Napoleonic wars, global per capita growth  was close to non existent for the whole 800 years before 1820.  As you say unemployment probably was very low in pre 1890 America,  but then it was a frontier country with almost boundless opportunity for development,  there was no unemployment benefit, and folk who couldnt find paid work could scrape a living off the land. (In 19th century Britain where much of the remaining common land was being walled off, my hometown of London had according to some sources 1 in 6 houses being used for prostition,  while men and older women who couldnt find work would sometimes kill themselves rather than submit to the worse than slavery conditions of the workhouse.) The two centuries were just too different to be compared, whereas apart from the change in economic policies the Bretton woods period wasnt so different than  either the Washington Concensus or the even worse inter war period.


 * Well I could go on and on, but I guess the point is the article is already balanced to reflect the sceptical view - a much stronger and well sourced case could be made for directly saying Keynes theories did indeed lead to low unemployment and high growth. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism discussion within article
Keynes plainly uses the term Jew in relationship to "avaricious": "I do not mean that Russian Communism alters, or even seeks to alter, human nature, that it makes Jews less avaricious or Russians less extravagant than they were before." Until today, April 3, 2010, was not in the article, and, when added, was summarily removed by one subjective editor, under the guise of 'there's already some discussion of antisemitism'. This is misguided logic and intellectually lacking in rigor. The references to what other third parties say about Keynes only go so far, whereas, this quote is from Keynes himself. Bull Market 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:RS explicitly advises us to rely on secondary sources, especially on potentially controversial issues like this one. I believe you'll find comments from Stalin praising free speech, but I don't see how those comments would be relevant to the article on Stalin. Using primary sources to push a conclusion in Wikipedia violates both WP:RS and WP:OR, so I am going to remove the new addition. Also, the new content is relatively extraneous as the same point is made with other material already. It doesn't matter how many weasel words you can concoct about my "misguided logic" or lack of "intellectual rigor": you're violating Wikipedia policies, and that's more troublesome. UBER  ( talk ) 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That entire section, in fact, seems like a flagrant hit piece on Keynes. The information is cited, but I question its notability and I think it should be entirely removed. UBER  ( talk ) 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Uber: Thank you for your comment. A few observations. 1) Regarding your example, the article about Stalin could reference Stalin speaking favorably about free speech as an illustration of his manipulativeness and/or untruthfulness with respect to how he otherwise governed. The illustration is very relevant to illustrate how Stalin said one thing and did another.  Many argue that Stalin was paranoid or crazy and this might also illustrate or develop one or both of these points. 2) Related to the inclusion of the instant quote from Keynes, himself-- respectfully, I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of the wikipedia rules related to primary and secondary sources. The rules merely caution, and do not prohibit use of primary sources. The wikipedia standards you cite recommend that a reliably published primary source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care. There was great care in the selection of the quote and its placement. Moreover, the only conclusion presented from the quote was mere statement that Keynes used the term "Jews" in relationship with "avaricious". This is hardly drawing a new and independent conclusion lacking in basis or substantiation from the quote. Indeed the book was published by a major publisher and is reliable for authenticity and accuracy. On the other hand, none of the secondary source articles referenced the passage in question (nor even the book from which the quote was drawn); accordingly, it would seem the secondary sources fail to reflect a full or complete analysis of Keynes as relates to potential antisemitism (the very focus of the sub-topic within the Keynes article). In fact, these sources seem rather apologetic for Keynes. (They are welcome to apologize if only they covered the hard facts such as this quote too). Really, it seems that some in academia worship or idolize Keynes for his very important contribution; some may not be able to bear the thought that their hero is suspect related to antisemitism-- that the invisible hand of revisionism and control by a powerful few censors over this otherwise open encyclopedia can shield their hero from what he, himself, a brilliant and accomplished mind, took the time to publish for all to read. 3) Finally, this is not a "hit job" on Keynes, (and, to be clear, the section was there long before I ever joined Wikipedia). The section on antisemitism is a rather small part of an article that looks beyond Keynes as economist.  Antisemitism by prominent intellectuals (assuming Keynes was and/or did project antisemitism) is relevant to his place in history and his potential influence on others who read him not just for his economic thoughts, but also for his thoughts.  (Of course, here, Keynes asserts an economic theory  to be gleaned which relates Jews and their economics. In conclusion, I strongly encourage you to allow a more free discourse in this situation and to interpret the rules related to primary sources as openly as the rules permit, and not any more restrictively than is honestly needed. If multiple secondary sources covered this very quote, your restrictiveness might be more palatable and fair to the facts.Bull Market 07:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bull Market, UberCryxic is correct in his explanation of policy. You state "it would seem the secondary sources fail to reflect a full or complete analysis of Keynes".  In that case your course of action should be to correct their analysis.  Write an article about this, get it published in a scholarly journal and gain academic acceptance of your opinion and then we will add it to the article.  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BM, I think it's quite astounding for you to offer your own personal analysis of where secondary sources on Keynes fall short. That's not our job here. Our job is to just report what reliable sources say, not to get into a tit-for-tat over what they should have said. I don't question the reputation of the source. I'm questioning the notability of the new content itself. We are advised to be frugal in article length, and the racial opinions of Keynes have never been regarded as an important part of his life. UBER  ( talk ) 17:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editors-- Ten respectful observations: 1) The immediate quote under discussion is by Keynes himself, “I do not mean that Russian Communism alters, or even seeks to alter, human nature, that it makes Jews less avaricious or Russians less extravagant than they were before." (I would settle for "I still think that the race has shown itself, not merely for accidental reasons, more than normally interested in the accumulation of usury" (quoted in Skidelsky 1992, 239. (This biography is quoted within the article)). 2) The immediate quote comes from the EXACT SAME SOURCE already allowed in the article to illustrate an anti-Russian sentiment. (A Short View of Russia, Essays in Persuasion, (London 1932) John Maynard Keynes, 297-312). Thus an editor selectively banished the quote about Jews, but kept the quote about Russians.   Who mentioned Stalin? 3) Provided were two reasons to prohibit the quote.  i. No primary sources allowed; and ii. Not relevant to why Keynes is of notoriety. 4) As explained earlier, Wikipedia does not ban primary sources; instead it prohibits original research. To be original research, words of original conclusion or analysis need to be added along with the primary source quote itself.  Accordingly, mere inclusion of a quote is not original research under Wikipedia standards.  In addition, seeking someone else to say the words of Keynes just as Keynes wrote them is impracticable. Who else would recite the telling quote of Keynes other than Keynes? Obviously, no one else can say this for Keynes. The standard here favors hearsay over a statement by the actual declarant.  Moreover, context for the quote is already within the article itself, and no one doubts the authenticity of the source.  Yet the quality of illustration would be far more equal were the illustrative inclusion related to antisemitism and Jews to match that for blacks and Russians within the paragraphs about the possible racism by Keynes. Right ow there is none for the Jews. 5) An editor picking and choosing which ethnicities merit an illustrative quote of racism and which don’t merit an illustrative quote sure comes across as acting without neutral point of view or at least as an appearance to this user of a subtle impropriety. This is especially true where a reader might glean that an editorial choice of exclusion and reversion is potentially ushered by a conscious or subconscious choice to shield Keynes from objective criticism or being seen in a lesser light.  His very own words about Jews are far more enlightening to the reader than a mere statement summary with a footnote, followed by a developed series of somewhat opposing examples in the paragraph which follows.  Rather, including some of what Keynes actually said about Jews would ensure against an interpretation of this article portion as just glossing over the subject of antisemitism as little as possible or a quick setup of a straw argument for so-called defeat in the next paragraph. 6) The possible anti-Semitism is relevant to Keynesian economics and should not be discarded as irrelevant to the man. As explained on National Public Radio in 2009, anti-Semitism is relevant because "Keynes’s dislike of Jews was somewhat central to how he understood economics." 7) On the prevalent issue of anti-Semitism and Keynes, rather than giving a hard quote from Keynes, the article merely provides footnotes to sources that are themselves not easily retrieved and not fully available online without subscription. (I understand there is no obligation to make sources easily found; however this has bearing on whether there is an appearance of anything less than a neutral point of view). 8) The article does not explain fairly what Keynes said about Jews, and then the article relates what “supporters of Keynes” say about the Keynes and anti-Semitism. The word choice “supporters” projects exactly what is wrong here—that the editors opt for material that favors or disfavors Keynes.   Again, this is not a question of supporting or opposing Keynes. The question is whether the facts about Keynes are presented fully, fairly, and without bias or special protection of Keynes. 9) Further, there should be not just a mere footnote, but rather a quote that provides evenness in the article from a secondary source, the peer-reviewed and published Melvin Reder, who wrote that “The record shows that Keynes's negative feelings about Jews persisted for most of his adult life, going back to 1900—and possibly earlier—and lasting at least until 1945 (he died in 1946). Clearly, [Keynes] was well aware of these feelings and of their incompatibility with his affection for his German Jewish friends...” (Reder, Melvin Warren, 1919-The Anti-Semitism of Some Eminent Economists, History of Political Economy - Volume 32, Number 4, Winter 2000, pp. 833-856, 839). 10) I am confident the article can be improved to at least illustrate rather than merely footnote without illustration. At present, the article essentially asserts anti-Semitism without comparatively strong or compelling and available evidence within the article, and then rejects the proposition that Keynes was anti-Semitic with claims that, essentially, some of his best friends were Jewish and that Keynes was a Zionist—i.e. he favored a single place to which all the Jews could go. (However, if it is indeed true that Keynes was anti-Semitic, there’s another, perhaps less noble perspective for that thought process, i.e. an alternative reason Keynes may have favored the Jewish State-- (See, for example, Phil Ochs, “Love Me I’m a Liberal”, Verse 3).Bull Market 03:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Bull Market 03:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Bull Market 03:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the advice from UberCryxic. You need to find third party sources supporting your opinions.  We all have our personal opinions but may only include published views of Keynes.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally Id be happy for you to add the quote Bull Market, as while its only a small minority of sources that even mention Keynes alleged anti semiticism, it is a charge more frequently levelled compared to general racism, and there is maybe a moderately strong link with his economics, especially his views on the harmfulness of hoarding. Youre right you can sometimes have primary sources without 2ndary, just like we can sometimes write important points with no source at all. However once we're challenged, secondary sources are king. Also theres the matter of undue weight, we cant have the section getting too large as we're limited in size and as even in most book length bios the subject only gets a sentence or two if that, so on that ground Uber would be within his rights to remove the entire section. The one weak point in your otherwise strong argument is the implication that Keynes had a sinister motive for supporting Zionism - if he really had a deep seated dislike of Jews, Keynes wouldnt have started giving Germany the silent treatment from the mid 30s (which skiledlsky says related specifically to his outrage on their treatment of Jews) despite him being instinctively pro German. And he probably wouldnt have abandoned his pacifism to speak out in favour of a forcefull responce to the Nazis. Anyhow, unless Uber changes his view guidelines do support him removing your addition, but if youre determined to expand on Keyne's alledged anti semitism you could create something like The Peronal Life and views of John Maynard Keynes where there would be space for a more rounded treatment. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: You are right that the anti-semitism charge is more commonly waged than the charge of general racism. That's why allowing the quote about "N's" and allowing the quote about Russians BUT NOT allowing an actual quote about Jews can be interpreted as a biased presentation of a wikipedia article. I agree article size is limited, but what this would amount to is a line or two. Look how much we've written on this page about inclusion of the line or two. A few other observations about disproving anti-semitism: Opposing the NAZI regime is not necessarily a defense of anti-semetism as there are many alternative reasons to oppose the NAZI regime. Favoring Israel's creation or existence (Zionism) is not necessarily proof to dispel antisemitism either. I did not say there is evidence Keynes wanted the Jews to go to Israel, I merely implied that one reason for anyone back then favoring a Jewish state is so they may leave Europe for the Jewish state. Then again, regardless of antisemitism Keynes may or may not have harbored, perhaps Keynes saw the Jewish state as a bonafide solution for Europe, on a social level, considering that he wrote, (published by Skidelsky (1983, 92), that "Jews as an Eastern people who, on account of 'deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European' can no more be assimilated to European civilisation than cats can be made to love dogs.'"* Finally, to attain balance, there should be as much emphasis on the parts of the main article discussing Keynes being antisemitic as there are parts suggesting or implying he was not anti-Semetic.  Absent a solid quote in the article, the article remains somewhat biased, but with a solid quote the article would, instead, be more fair. Bull Market 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BM, I am not arguing about whether or not Keynes was anti-semitic, that is what scholars do and we report what scholars say not our own interpretations. Please see:  WP:OR.  And we only report significant opinions (See:  WP:Weight) which are lacking here.  It is not our role to right great wrongs:  "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability".  Also, I am aware of the conspiracy theories linking Keynsian economics to anti-semitism and see no reason to give credence to fringe theories.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, my apologies. the comments made in the above previous paragraph on by (Bull Market 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)) were actually intended to be directed to FeydHuxtable (who had also commented). This was a clerical mistake for which I apologize. Thank you. Bull Market 20:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable: You are right that the anti-semitism charge is more commonly waged than the charge of general racism. That's why allowing the quote about "N's" and allowing the quote about Russians BUT NOT allowing an actual quote about Jews can be interpreted as a biased presentation of a wikipedia article. I agree article size is limited, but what this would amount to is a line or two. Look how much we've written on this page about inclusion of the line or two. A few other observations about disproving anti-semitism: Opposing the NAZI regime is not necessarily a defense of anti-semetism as there are many alternative reasons to oppose the NAZI regime. Favoring Israel's creation or existence (Zionism) is not necessarily proof to dispel antisemitism either. I did not say there is evidence Keynes wanted the Jews to go to Israel, I merely implied that one reason for anyone back then favoring a Jewish state is so they may leave Europe for the Jewish state. Then again, regardless of antisemitism Keynes may or may not have harbored, perhaps Keynes saw the Jewish state as a bonafide solution for Europe, on a social level, considering that he wrote, (published by Skidelsky (1983, 92), that "Jews as an Eastern people who, on account of 'deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European' can no more be assimilated to European civilisation than cats can be made to love dogs.'"* Finally, to attain balance, there should be as much emphasis on the parts of the main article discussing Keynes being antisemitic as there are parts suggesting or implying he was not anti-Semetic.  Absent a solid quote in the article, the article remains somewhat biased, but with a solid quote the article would, instead, be more fair. Bull Market 00:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)