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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
The preceding is clear calumny and stupidity. By such "logic" neither Adam Smith nor Paul Volcker were economists. He is a BA and an MA in economics, and was editor of the Wall Street Journal and he's not an economist? Who is then?
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)
Support
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
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) |
Substituted at 05:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stephen_Moore_(writer)&diff=889279903&oldid=889276327
Should be incorporated into the article somehow [1]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
The edit should stand. soibangla ( talk) 22:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)