User talk:Willcoop

Krugman
If this isn't your talk page then I apologize. Anyways. "1. your rationale regarding a misunderstanding by non-economists doesn't explain why you removed the first paragraph about the article from The Economist. That doesn't have to do with the paragraph below I see no reason why that should be deleted"


 * Actually I restored another user's deletions which seem justified to me at the time. If there was some useful info removed along with it, feel free to restore it.

"2. your explanation for removal on the grounds that it was a minor misunderstanding by non-economists is unfair. just because the criticisms are brought up by "non-economists" means they are suddenly invalid? only those who have advanced education in economics are capable of understanding what he writes and the rest are mere simpletons? it is properly cited and had been on the page for a long time. it was only removed after he won the nobel prize in what I assume was an attempt to hide valid criticisms of him. Willcoop (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"


 * Yes, when the criticisms are brought up by "non-economists", who do not understand economics, regarding economics, and who are criticizing an economist (and a very accomplished one at that), then yes, the criticisms are invalid. But in fact it's worse than that here. The other mere simpletons can perfectly understand Krugman's columns, although it may take a bit of research and looking up some numbers. These critics didn't even bother to do that. As to the timing of the removal and reasons for it. It was probably removed right after he got the prize (and like I said, I'm not the one who originally removed it, though I agree with it) because obviously once he got the prize the article got more attention. Also I don't think it was an attempt to hide, well, invalid, criticisms of him, just to remove some invalid ones, per undue weight. I got no problems with valid criticisms of Krugman. In fact I think that mixing invalid criticisms with valid ones tends to, unfortunately, undercut the credibility of the latter. So it's really to the critics benefit to seperate the wheat from the shaft and remove similar material.radek (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.radek (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)