This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Paul Krugman was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not adding my point of view; I'm just quoting Krugman's different positions on free trade. I'm not violating wikipedia's neutrality at all because I'm showing all of krugman's points of view on the
bre exchange . Moreover, the quotations are not out of context, they correspond precisely to the situation Dolytoit (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
The clique that guards this page won’t allow anything other than glowing praise and admiration for Krugman (which is hardly neutral). It’s one example of why Wikipedia is not trusted 2601:6C5:8400:3F80:849A:D5AF:D1F3:927D (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is a legitimate talking point. SPECIFICO should not be vandalizing views he doesn’t agree with. Obviously at least two people have other views 2601:6C5:8400:3F80:849A:D5AF:D1F3:927D (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: " Cherrypicked BLP content and article text over-generalizes from the source". I think it is relevant and should be included.
Krugman supports the Green New Deal.[1] He said that a "Green New Deal stuff is investment. On that stuff, don’t worry about paying for it. Debt as an issue is vastly overstated, and a lot of these things pay for themselves. Go ahead and just deficit finance it."[2]
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My expansion of the quote from David Kennedy's review of The Conscience of a Liberal was reverted with the comment: "There's nothing wrong with expanding content on the book and its significance, but this snippet does not add to the shorter version, and Kennedy says many other contextualizing things in the review that could be summarized and paraphrased for a more meaningful look at his reaction." It is untrue that the edit adds nothing to the shorter version. Kennedy points out that the book makes a serious contribution to the debate concerning the expansion of healthcare insurance, a topic that Krugman has addressed frequently and about which little is said in this article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is an op-ed from July 21: [1]. Seems relevant. I haven't read it yet, though. What, if anything, should be added from this? If we have any WP:SECONDARY sources, that would be helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm familiar with that op ed and the other pundits to which he refers in the op ed. It's really nothing significant in terms of his life, his career as an economist, or for that matter public policy. The Times had the cute idea of asking 8 columnists to come up with a "thing" they were wrong about. Were it not for the current obsession with monthly inflation figures, I'm sure he might have come up with something much more interesting and substantive.
But he didn't. I don't think this is a good pick for "criticism" or even "fallibilty of the pope" section. IP has not come up with any content proposal that would pass sourcing and content guidelines, so I think we can relax until there's some tofu on the table. SPECIFICOtalk 19:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
People make mistakes, and I agree that we don't need to point them out just for the sake of pointing them out. I would be interested to see what addition could be proposed, but if the whole idea here is just a "gotcha!" then this isn't worth the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There should be honest discussion about Paul Krugman praising Enron in publications prior to the scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.221.186.82 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply