Talk:Gold Wars

Neutrality

This article pushes the theory and several books (with positive praise), but does not offer a balanced perspective. Besides the three authors, how many economists subscribe to the theory? How is it received/regarded by the majority of economists? Blanket statements like "Modern currencies are based on debt - all of them" need reliable citations. Lastly, several of the references seem of questionable reliability. The theory itself needs more coverage in a neutral tone, not the books and authors (use them as references if needed). --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure is gold war is the best term for countries completing to own gold? I've found a link which mentions currency and gold wars independently of the books, would goldbroker.com be a suitable reference, they obvious have a vested interest in hyping gold. https://www.goldbroker.com/news/gold-wars-united-states-china-russia-406.html Jonpatterns (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The article should be broken up into articles on the individual books, then these articles should be nominated for deletion to see if they're actually notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a concept that is independent to the books. But I don't think 'Gold Wars' quite covers it. Firstly, only the US is alleged to be protecting a the US dollar. So maybe a renaming would be more appropriate. Something along the lines of 'United States manipulating Gold price theory'. It can be added in the article that it is sometimes referred to as the 'Gold Wars'. Also it may be appropriate to add information from this article to National_wealth Gold#Investment and Gold_as_an_investment. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty naked WP:PROFRINGE article that relies on FRINGE sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Many references have been added, yet still the redirect is put in place. This is not appropriate. The changes should be discussed before reverting to a redirect. These are MAINSTREAM sources.Misterkel (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No one reverted this to a redirect. It was reverted to the point before you added all of your Pro-Fringe clucka. If you continue to thumb your nose at guidelines and policy you may be asked to defend yourself at ANI. I sincerely hope that will not be necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at FTN

There is currently a discussion regarding this article at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion which may be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)