Separate opinions from the definition I deleted a silly reference in the lead section that referenced a 2009 Der Spiegel article The article discussed a debate in Germany about WHETHER Germany should stay with existing policies or consider a return to Keynesian theory As evidenced by the continued debate over EU monetary policy it is fraudulent to claim this debate was resolved at the time of the Der Spiegel article or even that the debate is resolved now in 2015 years later I also added a criticism section explaining that Keynesian policy may or may not work in theory but in practice no one has made it work in the real world Keynesian economic policy has resulted in crippling debts and bankruptcy even in Keynes own country Keynesian policy failures in real life is a valid criticism even if academics don t like it To the user that keeps deleting any edit that mentions Keynesian policy failures in real life outside the classroom theory you need to stop If you disagree and want to site real world success stories please do so But your arrogant efforts to stop all debate by deleting other viewpoints suggests you don t have a counter example The question is whether keynesian policy works outside of theory and you haven t even bothered to respond As for the collapse of the British economy and IMF bailout this is simply a a fact You are wrong Go look it up in as many places as you like England needed a bailout There is no debate about this Read WP NPV We don t describe things as failures unless there is consensus in the scientific community that it is so And yet Keynesians describe Austrian economics as wrong the austrian page is filled with quotes from known keynesians about how they the Keynesians think Austrian thinking is wrong Krugman lacks rigorous quantitative models several Why are keynesians given a huge section on the austrian page and yet you arrogant journalists are so intolerant that you can t accept one criticism on the keynesian page You are hypocrits at best and arrogant biased arbiters in truth Wikipedia won t be trusted if only one viewpoint gets to talk Wikipedia has a standard of inclusion based on verifiability Any information that is not directly attributed to a published reliable source can be challenged and removed The criticism that you added to the article did not provide any substantial citations to back up the claims Thus under the verifiability policy and no original research policy as it contained an analyst of events it was removed If the section is going to be restored it MUST have citations Otherwise no one can tell of you are simply making shit up in order to insert a particular point of view RFC Not Worded Properly If you would please rework your RFC so that it is worded properly Please state what the contention is and what you wish responders would comment on This propaganda piece is just one example of why many colleges won t allow students to reference Wikipedia While many economics professors who favor 8 10 tuition increases and endless student debt also favor Keynesian economic policy with no coincidence also involves crippling debt levels see Japan USA EU members Great Britain etc the fact remains that the economics profession is NOT in any way settled on Keynes theories While many agree Keynes theories got some things right and the fault lies in misapplication of those theories many others favor monetarism Austrian theory or behavioral economics Outside the G7 countries there is lots of support for still other theories including socialism communism and other forms of state controlled economics with no room for any private decisions Wikipedia s article was written by Keynesians who falsely portray their own beliefs as settled theory It is propaganda like this that causes many economics departments even those led by pro Keynesian professors to prohibit students from citing this trash Yes I am calling it trash and I am sure that offends some people Someone has to tell it to you straig