Talk:Ron Paul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleRon Paul was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 21, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
October 23, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 18, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 21, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 20, 2017.
Current status: Delisted good article


Climate change[edit]

[1] No. Of course "rising temperatures in some parts of the globe" and "temperatures are cooling in other parts" - duh.

But, like so many other ignorant laymen, Paul misses the point.

Climate change is about mean temperatures. What he says is 1. bullshit, 2. fringe propaganda and does not belong on Wikipedia unless we also quote a competent source that refutes it.

  • Please read WP:FRINGE: Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame.
  • Please read WP:BLP: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints
  • Please read WP:NPOV: While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.

So, if we do not also have a quote from a climatologist who explains how idiotic Paul's reasoning is, that quote has to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"What he says is 1. bullshit" He is a career politician, bullshit is part of his job description. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is not part of Wikipedia's job decription to help him spread it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look as if anyone wants to defend that revert. So, I'll delete the stupid quote again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the words fiscal policy to describe opinions on the federal reserve instead of monetary policy[edit]

Hi all,

First timer here. Maybe nitpicking but in macro-economic courses that I took (Econ and math major) I was taught that the federal reserve's interest rate manipulation, open-market operations etc. were examples of monetary policy, not fiscal policy. I understand fiscal policy to be more the tool of congress i.e. changing taxes or spending money to stimulate the economy. I believe articles on fiscal vs monetary policy should support this.

This is in one of the first paragraphs in the introduction section, which I guess I can't edit. Language would be much more precise if it were to be changed imho. 2601:586:5280:EEB0:303D:85BB:6EF8:B46E (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I edited this sentence accordingly. CWenger (^@) 14:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]