Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Moore (writer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Bullish on Bush"

[edit]

That's the title of one of his books, according to the "Bibliography"-section. And it goes on: "How George Bush's Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger."

So given the giant bullcrap he's come up with so far, how does this hack still get work? Talk about living in a meritocracy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.201.175 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Stephen Moore is not an economist -- the title of the page should be changed. He is a commentator, maybe a policy analyst. Calling someone an economist implies they have a doctorate in economics, which he does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.169.130 (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article title of Stephen Moore as an (activist) to be POV. A better and NPOV title would be (economist). If there is debate on what some consider "activist" activities, it can be included and debated in the article. Morphh (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Morphh - Per my statement above
No objections so I moved this article. Morphh (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

soft underbelly quote

[edit]

Stephen Moore is widely quoted as having said

"Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state [...] if you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

(see numerous blog quotes, and indeed Paul Krugman)

Does anyone have a primary source for this? Earliest I've found is from John Tierney, NY Times, 2005-01-23 MrArt (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I saw Stephen Moore last night in the movie, "Generation Zero." I don't know where to put that information. Rghollenbeck (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV flag

[edit]

user:Safehaven86 added an NPOV flag, but there is no discussion in Talk about it.

Krugman had another piece. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/the-mystery-of-moore/

Several well-sourced criticisms seem to have been removed. If multiple WP:RSs say that he got his facts wrong, then that should go in. --Nbauman (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original concern seems to have been over the allegedly cherry-picked nature of items listed in a previous criticism section. That section has since been removed. If anything, I would think that the bias in the article has swung to the other side: the Kansas Star issue was a pretty major scandal, and the article only devotes a single sentence to explaining what was wrong with Moore's numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if that issue accounts of a lot of Moore's notability at this point, his position at Heritage notwithstanding.50.191.21.222 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the template. Article seems well balanced to me. If there are objectiosn, please let me know. Yintan  08:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Moore (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stephen Moore (writer)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs infobox, references, expanding (born/life etc), See also. Morphh 13:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 05:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not copyvio, nor was the previous version

[edit]

Why don't you post with your handle so everyone can see who you are? Hmmm?

Also, there is no deflation, Moore has tripled-down on this brazen falsehood, and you can be sure I will definitely prove it. There will be no whitewashing. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Moore_(writer)&diff=889279903&oldid=889276327

WP:COPYVIO covers closely paraphrasing... which is exactly what you've done with the NBC source each time you've used it. I ensured your seemingly very personal need to have the data on inflation though was filled, so hopefully you can stop attacking my character just to push your own personal dislike/hatred of others on this site (diff). 2601:282:B00:B56A:7C59:D195:956C:26F9 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) soibangla (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop harrassing the IPv6 user about logging in, per WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His views on women

[edit]

Should be incorporated into the article somehow[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More via NYT.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lede should note why his nomination for the Fed was contentious

[edit]

His mysogynistic views and the fact that his economic/academic credentials were woefully inadequate for the position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His vews on climate change belong in the article

[edit]

This is obvious. The source for his fringe remarks is a peer-reviewed academic book about the climate change denial movement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this sentence is proper and should stay in. Neutralitytalk 18:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that climate change is a scam is not denial. There is a lot of money and policy discussion outside of the science that makes it ripe for fraud on all sides. The quote has no context and since he is an economist, not a scientist, his comments are likely about economic fraud rather than commentary on the science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:a2e::1002 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moore is not an economist. He knows as little about economics as he does climate science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And?? Economics writer is better description? advanced degree in economics? The point is that scam is about finance, not climate change. "Climate change science is real, Green New Deal is a climate change scam." That position is not denial and there is enough things posing as science to have the position it is a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:a2e::1002 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moore's statement is literally "I happen to believe that global warming is the biggest scam of the last two decades." If that's no longer his position, feel free to update it with reliably sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that literally isn't fringe and is not a statement about the science unless you have context from a reliable source. There are plenty of global warming scams that would justify such a statement. Solyndra, green new deal, etc, etc. A person talking about scams that has advanced economic degrees is most likely talking about financial swindles yet you have twice ridiculed his position on the science without evidence. It's a single out-of-context quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:a2e::1002 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that literally isn't fringe Of course it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that climate change is a scam is not denial Of course it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit should stand. soibangla (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Moore's Personal Life/ Divorce

[edit]

The second paragraph of the section starts off the article with, "Moore did not contest the divorce." At no point in the articles cited does it mention this. This would put that sentence in violation of Wikipedia: Original Research. Further, this is an assertion in a lawsuit, not an established fact. I think this should be removed. The first paragraph should remain as it is facts from the divorce, not assertions made from either side during a messy divorce case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisio10 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your second edit summary, you wrote:

As I said in my post to this page's talk section, this is a list of assertions made by his ex-wife in a divorce petition. Just because a petition goes uncontested in a divorce case doesn't make it fact. An uncontested divorce petition isn’t an agreement of the individual details of the case but rather an agreement with the overall motion for divorce

But it's not simply that Moore did not contest the divorce. The RS says "he did not contest anything in Ms. Moore’s petition," meaning any specific allegations she made, as shown in the edit. If her allegations were false, he could have challenged them in his response but still not challenged her petition for divorce, but he didn't. That's why the edit should remain. soibangla (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When someone chooses not to contest a divorce, it means they are not contesting any financial aspects or the fact that they should get a divorce. Leaving a divorce petition uncontested doesn't mean the claims made are facts. You also fail to post my full summary, which includes

If Wikipedia were filled with information from uncontested motions it would no longer be an online encyclopedia, but a tabloid.

Davisio10 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means they are not contesting the request for a divorce. The defendant is free to challenge specific claims while still agreeing to the divorce, to, for example, have a bargaining position for alimony and child support. But Moore also didn't challenge any of the specific claims, while still agreeing to the divorce. Some facts about people might make others uncomfortable, but it doesn't make it tabloidy, as numerous other BLPs show. soibangla (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a economist?

[edit]

I notice a lot of back and forth over the question of: is he a economist? Well he has a degree in economics.....and he has worked as one.....how exactly is he not one?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is an economist and not just a "writer", not only has he worked as an economist, written a ton of articles on the subject in everything from Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard and National Review, AND served as an economic advisor to the American President, overhauling the US tax policy for the Trump administration, which was eventually passed into law by Congress, etc., etc... of course he is an economist. The problem is politics, and overwhelming left wing bias on Wikipedia. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to dislike him

[edit]

Deleted today, from the 'writings and statements' section:

Surely these statements should be in the article somewhere, but they aren't writings or statements. How about a general "Criticisms" section? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement likely should. Not sure about the relevance of the second. Maybe in career section within the timeline.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer at my comment I realize it could be read differently that what I intended. I am in no way advocating for the inclusion of the second. I am saying that inclusion of the first is likely DUE but that it should be included somewhere in the career section.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we shouldn't mention the fact he was a advisor to Trump. However, you could refrain from these POV statements such as "he supported Trump, so we can hate him", that would be best. Furthermore, I have nothing against "Criticism" section, but sometimes they are discouraged here. [3]Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tankersley, Jim (5 August 2016). "Donald Trump's new team of billionaire advisers could threaten his populist message". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
  2. ^ "Trump taps a strident Powell critic for spot on Fed board". Reuters. 2019-03-22. Retrieved 2019-03-23.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Moore_(writer)&oldid=1259613333"