Talk:John Maynard Keynes

Illuminus?

I have heard that Keynes was a member of the Illuminati. Should this be added to the article? 24.198.105.135 (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No, because it is complete nonsense. The Illuminati is a crackpot conspiracy theory designed to separate gullible people from their money. See also Alex Jones#Website, own-brand and endorsed products. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

While I largely agree with JMF, I'd be a little less emphatic. We could include the assertion if someone finds a high quality source to support it (e.g. a biography by a major publisher). It's accepted historical fact that there was an Illuminati back in the 18th century, on the surface at least it campaigned for reason & enlightenment values against religion and superstition. They publicly disbanded around 1785 but its not impossible they persisted in secret for some time after, maybe even to the early 20th century. Lord Keynes was certainly the type to join a secret society and his biographies record he was militantly atheist as a youth. Might be interesting to note that said belief didn't survive much contact with reality. While biographers find no evidence he ever gained personal faith, by the end of his life he fully agreed with his frenemie von Hayek that religion was on balance pro social and something to be cherished. These days, AFAIK every single top tier elite is onboard with the desirability to boost religion and re-enchant the world, at least here in the West. Sadly, they no longer have the ability to bring much influence to bear on global society, regardless of any clubbing together in secret societies. So different from Lord Keynes day - as he said to von Hayek shortly before he died, he could turn global opinion in a flash if he had to. Anyway, I thought this amusing to mention given JMF's earlier reply, as the town of milton keynes is perhaps the most concrete manifestation of recent elite attempts to re-enchant the world. A moderately knowledgeable person would have to take Denialism to a whole new level not to see that town's geometric layout, street names, and various esoteric statues and other architectural features as evidence of a secret society at work. Not sadly one that seems to be having any great supernatural effects, though rather charming things have happened while I've been visiting the place.FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Well anyone persuaded by that flight of fantasy is very likely to believe that Keynes was not only a leading illuminatus but also a lizard from Arcturus in human form.

(For anyone wondering what Milton Keynes has to do with anything, see Milton Keynes#Name (nothing to do with Friedman), Milton Keynes #Grid roads and grid squares (the "strict Roman grid" lie), Central Milton Keynes#Astronomical alignment (the "modern Stonehenge" myth) and Keynes family#Places in England bearing the name Keynes (five). But never let facts get in the way of a good story.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Old Discussions from Talk Page

This seems to be a widespread issue on Wikipedia.

The concern should be self-explanatory: inconvenient/anti-narrative discussions are hidden from public view and discussion, and relegation to the revision history - under the guise of keeping the talk page uncrowded/neatly organized, or under the guise of removing stuff that is labeled as "silly, conspiratorial, unfounded, politically incorrect, or "objectively false.""

While such arguments may have merit, I would suggest, imo, that most people can see the benefit of a readily accessible, complete and uncensored talk page.

I would suggest that this benefit outweighs the former arguments.

I would also suggest that that an obviously shortened and lacking talk page looks extremely fishy to a reasonable and questioning person.

Is there a reason or policy behind this, imo, recent trend towards shortened/censored talk pages? Sober Reasoning (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article should probably be split. I agree with this, and I think some information should be moved to other articles or removed.
• There is a lot of uncited prose.
• The article relies upon many block quotes, and I think some of them can be removed or summarised.
• Unreliable sources like Investopedia and mises.org are used as inline citations, and should be reevaluated.
• "Cultural representations" is full of one-sentence paragraphs which should be merged.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole cultural representations section could be removed. Its pretty trivial if you ask me. Bonewah (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

John Maynard Keynes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The article, at 12000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. There is a lot of uncited prose, and an overreliance on block quotes. Unreliable sources are used as intext citations and the "Cultural representations" section is full of one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Delist: in addition to the issues outlined above, and live citation needed tags, there are other prose infelicities, and the overall structure is pretty unclear (perhaps related to the WP:TOOBIG issues identified above). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.