Talk:End the Fed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the End the Fed article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Libertarianism portal End the Fed is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reception

The "reception" section of this page at time of writing contains no information about the book's popularity, or any mention of reviews in the popular press. Seems like a neutral point of view section would present information on popularity, comments from poplar press and notable people, and finally comments from academics, economists, and perhaps Federal Reserve employees -- but only if disclaimed as such.

To that end, I started by adding more detailed information and better citations for the New York Times Bestseller list. They were removed by Thenightaway. I added Amazon bestseller rankings. They were removed by Thenightaway. I added perspectives from Time Magazine, the Washington Post, and Forbes (the contemporaneous review by Steve Forbes himself). I figured all of this would be as "valid" as the comments from television presenter Jon Stewart. Not according to Thenightaway. He took it all out on the basis of "Original Research" and "Synthesis." No Thenightaway, I didn't reach Steve Forbes for comment and publish his words on this page. No, I didn't draw conclusions about what he said that weren't supported by his review.

And why is Alan Blinder referred to in this section as a professor and not as a former employee of the Federal Reserve? Every time I attempt to edit the page to make his longstanding association with the institution clear, the text is removed by Thenightaway. Is his association to The Fed really secondary in this context to his professorship? That's a bit like writing a book on the Beatles in 1980 and referring to Paul McCartney as "Wings frontman Paul McCartney" instead of referring to him as a Beatle or a former Beatle. It is perhaps even more odd in this instance because in this case the subject is a political appointee whose relation to the subject matter is being whitewashed by framing his relationship to the Federal Reserve as primarily academic.

Finally, there's the issue of surveys. When I found it, the page gave the impression of a consensus of economists by using the phrase "surveys of economists show..."

My first objection to this is that the economists being discussed here are not reacting to the book. They are reading to a survey that is not about the book. Is this page about separate reactions to ideas discussed in the book, or about reactions to this book in particular? This is not a page about some broader debate on monetary policy. It is a page about the reaction to a book. The Blinder paper referenced does mention Ron Paul (oddly as a 'camel') but it is mainly in the context of his legislation around Fed transparency, and not in reaction to the book End the Fed. Even the 'surveys' to which he refers were apparently carried out nearly a decade before the book was written, and long before the Financial Crisis. So is is unclear how they can constitute a "reception" of the book. Strange to include them at all, unless the idea is to debate Paul's ideas and not describe the "reception" to the book.

My second objection to this is that even if one somehow grants space in the "reaction" section to reactions to the general ideas shared by the book, rather than to the book itself, the only survey that seems to have occurred after the books publication is one an informal online poll that Former Vice Chairman of the Fed Alan Binder undertook himself as a "petition against the Paul bill." Following his footnote, we see that it was totally unscientific can hardly be a "reaction" to End the Fed. Hard to see how this single footnote can justify the generalization "surveys." Seems to be "a survey" at best, and even then it is more of a petition. And it would not be consistent to characterize it in a way that makes it seem somehow rigorous, scientific, or indicative of consensus. What is the purpose of including it, including it without disclaimer or contest, and continuously removing any of my attempts to remedy the misleading text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.17.61 (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective?

It is unclear and highly subjective to state that the Fed was "created by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia". Is this a fact or attributed to Ron Paul? There is a reference given as if it is fact, but the reference is to another Wikipedia article which does not mention either the Morgans or the Rockefellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.24.148.8 (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That information is censored from wikipedia. The serfs are not supposed to know about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.50.246 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP134.24.148.8: The fact that something is "unclear" or "subjective" is not necessarily a ground for objection. And, clearly, the entire article is about what Ron Paul claims in his book -- and the assertion is clearly attributed to Ron Paul. No, the reference is not "given as if it is a fact."

You are correct to the extent that references in Wikipedia articles should not be using, as a source, another Wikipedia article. We will try to clean that up.

Dear IP 84.22.50.246: Perhaps you should actually read the Wikipedia material about which you are pontificating. Your reference to "serfs" and your apparent belief that material is being hidden is way off base. The information on the Jekyll Island meeting is noted in the following articles: in Federal Reserve System; in History of the Federal Reserve System; in Criticism of the Federal Reserve; and of course in this article, "End the Fed." So, obviously, the "information" is not "censored from Wikipedia." Try actually reading the material.

Further, the Jekyll Island conference is covered by the Federal Reserve System itself, in its own publications. Famspear (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the actual language from the article:

He [Ron Paul] further maintains that most people are not aware that the Fed—created (he asserts) by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia...."

And, there are links that clearly show that what is being discussed is the Jekyll Island conference. Honestly, people, pay attention. Famspear (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]