User talk:Lawrencekhoo/Archive 1

No problem

It is very rare to find someone who has been registered as long as you have who has never been communicated with on her or his talk page. Kukini ^hablame aqui 17:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, we wikignomes toil in obscurity, while elves like you get all the glory :D --lk 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL...GLORY!!--Kukini ^hablame aqui 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kukini/Welcome

Feel invited to copy it and make it your own. Thanks for the heads up!--Kukini ^hablame aqui 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have written you a reply on my discussion page. Smarred Wolet 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jevons paradox

I did not remove your Energy Policy reference, I just moved it to a different paragraph. I thought you would appreciate that -- I thought the Greening and Potter references should be together as they address the same issue.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Soetoro-Ng

Being the half-sister of a presidential candidate and a member of his campaign staff does not make someone notable. I was being bold, but if you would prefer, we can send the article through AFD. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The China Study RFD

That you for your comment to keep The China Study. A user has created a new article titled Vegetarianism in China and recently added a See Also link to that article from the The China Study. It is possible that Vegetarianism in China has been created with the intent of casting doubt on the information provided in The China Study. I was wondering what you thought. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Jevon's paradox

Hi, and thanks for making contact on my Talk page. It's late and I will look forward to reading your comments when I am fresh in the morning... Johnfos (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Your edit to "Objections to Evolution" seems factually accurate. Unfortunately, it is also original research. Can you cite an authority that makes the same argument?Kww (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified and added citations. Suggestions for improvement? lk (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you could find someone that explicitly says that this was a falsifiable test of evolution, or people could accuse you of synthesis. What you have is fine for the individual facts, but doesn't strongly support the conclusion.Kww (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments are made by Douglas Theobald in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof" - the reference that immediately precedes the words "For example," in my edit. lk (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Printing

glad to see the long overdue work on upgrading the articles. As you can probably tell, they were a series of compromises between extreme positions, and some reorganization was very much in order. Only think I'm unhappy with is the emphasis on the Phaistos disk--I think the article in the Gj an eccentric overinterpretation. But I guess it will have to wait until further work on it gets published saying so. DGG (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've pared down the section on the Pharos disk, and explained better what it actually is. lk (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian School

I would very much like to assume good faith with regards to your edits to the article on the Austrian School. Assuming good faith on your part leads me to the conclusion that you must have either misread the article history or not thoroughly read the material you reinserted in this edit: [2].

This makes Austrian theories much too imprecisely defined to be clearly used to explain or predict real world events. This criticism of the Austrian school is related to its rejection of the [[scientific method]] and [[empirical]] testing in favor of self-evident [[axiom]]s and logical reasoning.<ref name = "mgtqpu"/><ref name = "ovjxyg"/>

I hope that we can agree that this assertion is a controversial one, and so can be made only with the support of reliable sources. Even if attributed to reliable sources, such controversial assertions must be clearly presented as the position of the source author and not made in the encyclopedic voice. DickClarkMises (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are good. They show clearly what critics of the 'Austrian school' believe. A section called 'criticisms' should reflect what critics say. However, I have edited to remove the 'encyclopedic voice'. --lk (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unnecessary stub tags

Hi, Please don't add {{stub}} to articles like Wax ester when they already have categorised stub tags - it just wastes the time of people at WP:STUBSORT. Thanks, PamD (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't notice the category stub tag at the bottom. lk (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Great Inventions of ancient China

I think the quote is relevant; just not relevant enough to initiate an edit war with Gun Powder Ma. In any case, I don't have a very strong opinion about the quote, at least not on the level of concern that Gun Powder Ma has for it (i.e., wanting to constantly remove it from the page). The article appears to have all the essentials; we don't necessarily need Bacon's input on the inventions' usefulness.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I'll put the reference into a footnote. Hopefully this will not cause a dispute. lk (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For my first Barnstar! Also glad that I found a friend who agrees with me on the editing of the Printing article. As an artist who commonly has his artwork trashed by execs, I am not afraid to hack the limb off to save the body. MiracleMat (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of work you've put into Wikipedia, I was surprised that you didn't get one already. So I decided to be bold, and put that right! lk (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended Consequence and WikiProject History

Although an unintended consequence is primarily considered to be a philosophical term, it nevertheless relates to history in the sense that historical events, particularly in military history, often serve as superb examples of unintended consequences. And this is precisely where the philosophy of history comes into play as well. Take for instance the decision of the British and the Americans not to enter Berlin prior to the Soviets in the spring of 1945. This move was initially done out of respect for the physical prowess of the Red Army and all that it had suffered while fighting the Nazi juggernaut alone. Eventually however, the British and the Americans realized that they had just ceded all of Eastern Europe to the communist menace, which was surely an unintended consequence of their original decision. And if my response appears to be more of a condescending lecture rather than a concise answer, I sincerely apologize. Even so, I appreciate your question, as it forces me to defend my actions, and thus, improve my thought processes by informing others. FitzColinGerald (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I actually do enjoy it when people take time to share their thought processes. It makes sense now that you have explained it. lk (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip mania

Hi Dr. Khoo, thanks for looking in on Tulip mania. I've gone through the article in a few places and added more emphasis on the fact that there's no consensus on this topic. I've noticed that most economists writing about efficient markets (from either side) will add a disclaimer somewhere that, in some sense, the issue is unresolvable, and also depends very much on how one defines both "efficient market" and "speculative bubble" and "rational expectation", and so on (as I'm sure you know better than I do). I don't have access to sources that go into great depth on this debate, but I'm also unsure how much the article on Tulip mania should go into it? Suggestions on how best to approach that rather tricky issue would be much appreciated. Thanks again for looking in. --JayHenry (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay (or is it Henry?), As you note there's no need to get into too much detail about efficient markets, etc. I think you've done an excellent job explaining as necessary in the article, and I fully support it for Good Article status. Best, Lawrence lk (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Lawrence! They say you should never trust a man with two first names, and I'm no exception, but you can call me Jay. I was thinking of taking the article through the Featured Article process (it'd be nice to see an economics article on the Main Page for once, wouldn't it?) and I wondered if you had any suggestions for further improvement or thought it was pretty close? --JayHenry (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look now at Tulip mania. Yes, it could use some rewritting, but all the content I think is needed is there, maybe too much Smallbones (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reorganization flows very smoothly. Good work! By the way, have you seen any critiques of Thompson's paper? I've searched but haven't found any. --JayHenry (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of printing template

This is very large & left a huge white gap at Woodblock printing. It would be better with smaller type, or at the bottom of the page. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find too large templates annoying also. I've shrunk it somewhat, but I'm not a templates person. lk (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese inventions

Hello, we're having a vote right now, would you mind and came in to have a vote there? Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kindi GAN

Hi. We've been going over the GA nom of Al-Kindi, and it's almost ready to pass. Since you've contributed a lot to the article, perhaps you can fix the few remaining issues. We've been waiting a while, so could you please hop on over as soon as possible so we can pass the article? thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

I was wondering if you would be able to rejoin the discussion over at FairTax. This has become too difficult to address by disputing editors and the introduction of a first time moderator has recently made it worse. It looks like we may be heading to an arbitration, but we just need more people in the discussion. This article is seriously wearing me out. Most of the discussion is not really about content, it's more about policy and the basis for including and excluding content. Debates over WP:FRINGE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look over and add it to my watchlist. lk (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There are several things I've noted that need toning down or regrouping of arguments for a more neutral presentation. Size is always a difficult thing. We need to present the point of views, without overdoing it. I'm fine with cutting content, so long as we can effectively describe the viewpoints. Morphh ^(talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite journal

I listed Cite journal for deletion, a redirect for which created. The discussion is here. Suntag (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lawrenceekhoo. I listed the three RfDs separately because not all of them may be useful and they should be discussed separately. I did consider listing them together, but I felt that each one should have its own, separate conclusion. This edit changed how I originally listed the RfDs. Please take a look and consider changing the RfD listings back to their original format. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It probably is too late to change it back since others have commented. Suntag (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With the keep consensus for cite journal, cite book, cite news, and cite web, we should be able to keep others from Removing cross-namespace redirect for these redirects as they have in the past. Suntag (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economics sidebar

We're working on an Economics sidebar over at Wikiproject Economics. We could use someone with your background in the discussion on what best to include and how to organize and weight the topics. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protectionism

How is the current/previous material more mainstream? on the contrary, it seems narrow and a bit political. Please illuminate the subject, right now the introduction is tattered and incoherent. And a few quick questions...

• First: are subsidies considered protectionism in the mainstream view? and if so why?
• do tariffs and trade restrictions on raw materials raise the price of refined goods for which they are inputs?
• do subsidies only guard against risk, ostensibly or otherwise?
• what is the purpose of exchange rate in the introduction? (no context is given)

The introduction needs to be rewritt

• does innovation flourish under protectionism?
• are there opportunity costs involved in protectionism, and if so, what are some?
• are U.S. and European agricultural subsidies beneficial to developing nations? are they popular with developing nations?
• are tariffs and trade restrictions less politically robust in the west than subsidies? (excepting France for now...) or to put that an other way, would it be easier for the U.S. Congress to pass subsidies or tariffs, and which would get more of a push from external sources, if either?
• is historical context relevant or helpful anymore? does it shed light on the subject?

Blablablob (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article is looking tattered, but I think a tattered NPV article, is preferable to a good looking but inaccurate one. It's on my to-do list to fix it, unfortunately I haven't gotten round to it yet. As a stop gap, I've fixed the introduction up a bit; hopefully this answers your questions. lk (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrians

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say the Austrians are wp:fringe, but they're certainly an over-represented minority throughout WP. I'm taking a break from conflict now, but I wish you luck. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I know I'm asking for trouble taking on the 'Austrians' on the net – for some reason, many internet people (netters?) think that they can 'grok' economics without graduate study, and they mostly latch on to Austrian economics (perhaps because, without math models, 'Austrian' arguments are the ones they find accessible). They fail to understand that while academic economists make verbal arguments, that is just the tip of the iceberg. All the deep issues are fought over using complex algebraical models and painstaking statistical studies that are impenetrable to the layman, but which are nonetheless convincing and comprehensible to the trained economist. Unfortunately, I have yet to convince an 'Austrian' of that fact.

I think Austrian economics is fringe, albeit the least 'fringy' kind. They fall somewhere between the categories 'Generally considered pseudoscience' and 'Questionable science', as described in WP:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. They are slightly better than creationism, but not as well established as psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, because they don't recognize that Austrian economics is fringe, their continual harassment hinders progress towards better quality economics articles. I think it would be good to firmly establish that they are fringe. Until and unless there are self-described 'Austrians' on the Economics faculties of accredited universities, I'll be working on that assumption. Please excuse the rant. Best, lk (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been off for a while, but back and ready to join you in trying to ensure a reasonable balance between the prominence of the Austrian view in economics and the presence here. Inflation article is currently warped and needs fixing.--Gregalton (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as somebody who is not an economist who got sucked into arguing with the "Austrians", the impression I get is that they should probably be regarded as minor rather than fringe. It is not purely an internet cult (even if some of them give that impression with their arguments) but it sure as heck isn't a mainstream economic viewpoint either. I live in the UK, which is probably the part of western Europe where American ideas have the greatest traction yet Austrian School economics is not a phrase I have heard of here at all. It seems to be very localised in the USA and its main traction seems to be among some economic Libertarians but I am not even convinced that it is considered mainstream in those circles. I don't agree with comparisons with pseudoscience because economics a is not a hard science and should not be judged in that way.

The questions we need to ask in order to decide how much coverage it gets are:

• Are Austrian School writers published in RS journals?
• Are Austrian School academics on the staff of accredited universities?
• Do they have traction with any serious political parties?
• Are they taken seriously internationally? (In Austria maybe?)
• To what extent are their views really novel? Is this really a new/separate viewpoint or is it just classical economics with a new name and an attitude?

--DanielRigal (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions:

• No, Austrian School writers are almost never published anywhere except in their own journals.
• As far as I know, there is not a single self-identified Austrian who is a tenured faculty member in the Economics dept of an accredited university.
• Ron Paul is their most visible supporter. They are not taken seriously by any major political party.
• You are correct in observing that the Austrian school is very localised to the US, mainly among some economic Libertarians there. They have no following in Austria.
• They made some important contributions about 100 years ago, that have long since been incorporated into mainstream economics. However, they still claim that they are the only ones with those insights (eg. ordinal vs cardinal utility).

The most striking aspect about 'Austrians' is that they cling to messy verbal arguments, and reject real world observation, methods long ago rejected by real economists. In my mind, this identifies them as pseudoscience. lk (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is the inflation article. The Austrian School don't believe in price inflation. (That in itself puzzles me but I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of their views.) They believe that monetary inflation is the only inflation worth the name. Despite this they have put a lot of coverage into the inflation article, which is about price inflation. I worry about its relevance there, although it might be acceptable in the monetary inflation article. I don't mind it being clearly noted that the Austrian School rejects the validity/significance/whatever of price inflation in the inflation article but I don't think it needs to be woven all the way through.

--DanielRigal (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with DanielRigal: it is not quite at the status of fringe, but definitely marginal (with a lot of overlap with some who hold rather more extreme views that would be considered fringe, hence the occasional impression). At any rate, not a mainstream school of economics and should be covered in articles about that school, not littered throughout the wp.

I have noticed that there are roughly a dozen editors (including yourselves) who occasionally attempt to address this issue. I think it may be worthwhile to contact some of the others to concentrate on articles when and where problems are arising.--Gregalton (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any useful ways to collaborate on something like this?--Gregalton (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't classify them as fringe either. I usually tie them to Laissez-faire, which is certainly a notable enough ideology. It is easy to name prominent adherents, so their viewpoint should be included per NPOV. The challenge will be providing proper weight to the arguments, which should be in relation to each topic point. It may be better to expand on their viewpoints in an article about the minority viewpoint. So the Austrian School article or some subarticle could expend greatly on their view of price inflation, while the main inflation article contains a basic summary of their views, which links to their article. Summary style section or as some inline wikilink within the context. With this, you just have to be careful not to create a POV fork, but that you're applying proper weight to the subject. Morphh ^(talk) 17:09, 06 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are of course tied to laissez-faire, but so is most of economics (to some degree). Your approach - of having a very marginal econ school covered in the articles on that school - is IMHO the way to go, and which is already covered quite well in the relevant articles. Their view of inflation is - at least advocated within these pages - largely definitional.--Gregalton (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly given undue weight in the lead. Morphh ^(talk) 23:56, 06 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can take a lead from the articles on psychology and psychoanalysis. It is quite clear that psychoanalysis is better established and less 'fringe' than Austrian economics. There are tenured faculty members of major universities who study psychoanalysis, and articles are published on psychoanalysis in journals based in major universities. However, it is still questionable science, and is, in fact, the example used for 'Questionable science' in 'WP:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases'. When we look at articles on subjects like Autism and Phobia, nowhere is the 'psychoanalytic viewpoint' presented as an alternative. Even in Depression, the disorder perhaps most associated with psychoanalytic techniques, there is no mention of psychoanalysis. There is a very brief mention in the article on Obsessive-compulsive disorder, before going on to more conventional treatments. lk (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a disorder, but the overlaps with obsessive-compulsive and paranoid disorders are certainly prominent;)--Gregalton (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with the Fringe guideline in general. I see it more often used as a method of trying to exclude a minority viewpoint, than for a proper purpose. I don't even quite fully understand its place - what is covered by Fringe that Undue and Notability don't cover? It seems a way to side-step NPOV. I think psychoanalysis should be mentioned in that article, however briefly, if permitted by the NPOV undue weight criteria. These areas are encyclopedic and if properly attributed and stated as an opinion regarding that particular field, I don't see an issue with including it, but see a large issue with excluding it based on some editors assumptions and opinions regarding its placement in mainstream. Weight is one thing, exclusion is another, particularly when the viewpoint is notable and verifiable. IMO, fringe should only be used in extreme cases - I'd delete the guideline altogther if it were up to me. Sorry to rant on your talk. Morphh ^(talk) 23:40, 07 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morphh, you make good points. I do realize that what I consider fringe can be another's hard science and vice versa. And I agree that we should probably err on including rather than excluding viewpoints. However, I think that WP:FRINGE is still a good guideline. It doesn't cover anything that cannot be inferred from WP:UNDUE, but it's nice to have it all written out. lk (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the purpose of WP:FRINGE is that it details WP:UNDUE in two ways. First, it makes it clear that "undueness" is nonlinear, that not everything should appear in articles in proportion to its appearance elsewhere, and that there are threshholds below which something shouldn't appear at all. Second, it helps to clarify that "undue" isn't a matter of how much is written about something. Fringe theories frequently have a phenomenal amount written about them, so it might be important to point out that sheer volume doesn't make something notable. I like it as a clarification. I still don't feel Austrian economics qualifies, but honestly I still don't get Austrian economics. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creto, if you don't get Austrian econoimcs, then maybe you should read a little? Henry Hazlitt's "One lesson" is a brilliant introduction, and not very long either. Start there. Of course, I don't really see what's so difficault about Austrianism. It's simple, deductive logic from known axioms and derived economic laws. It is much easier to understand than the rediculous, magical, neverending formulas of the monterists or neoclassisists. How can you explain anything by simply throwing out a number of random letters and mathematical symbols?

Misessus (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LK and others, it seems from this discussion and edit wars reflected here and here implies that some debate on the fringiness of Austrianism is called for. I'm not sure the best place for such a debate. Does anyone know if there's areas set aside for such things? If not I'd suggest creating a sub-page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. I admit that I'm not ready to join battle on either side of this, so it might be premature, but if y'all are up to it, clarity would be nice. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The right place would be to start a discussion at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but I'm not sure if at this point, it would be productive to submit a case there. However, it probably shouldn't be on my talk page. Should we move this whole conversation over to the Economics Wikiproject discussion page? lk (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like administrator dude Satori Son (who 24hour-banned Misesus for 3RR) has already started a case there. lk (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hi Lawrencekhoo, Don´t you think it is better we do everything on my talk page? I ask you the questions there and you answer there?

I wish to point out that these will be questions about original research in economics that is not a matter that can be placed in Wikipedia articles. That is why I want to ask you outside Wikipedia since you are an economics academic. I want to make sure I keep these matters out of Wikipedia articles since I understand the WP original research policy.

Are you not available on another site where you use an internet nickname that will protect your anonymity? I can discuss the matter there with you. I would prefer that. Pacluc (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue the conversation on your talk page. I'll check back on your talk page and try my best to answer any questions you may have.lk (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thank you. I left the questions on my talk page. Pacluc (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your views. Pacluc (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you don't mind, I'm going to archive them here on my talk page, as I like to save a copy of everything I've written. Waste not, want not. lk (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what we agreed: as stated above. I would appreciate it very much if you could be so kind as to remove my questions from your talk page. Thank you. Pacluc (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problems. I've blanked them. lk (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pacluc (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme

Thank you for reverting the southern hip hop page under a guideline i was not familiar with. Unfortunately, he had reverted those edits yet again. This is bordering on edit warring and vandalism. I do not know how to proceed from here. If he deserves blocking or other disciplinary action, please help me in the pursuit. Thanks.Cosprings (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :)

JBsupreme seems unreasonable about this. Why does he have a bee in his bonnet about this page. Did you do something to piss him off? (No worries if you did, wikipedia policy is that the person who gets pissed off is in the wrong.)

Our strategy must be 3 fold.

1. Calmly discuss the evolution of the page on the talk page.
2. Provide citations for the page. Use google. Cite statements throughout the page.
3. We must both watch the page together. However, we must be mindful of the 3 reverts rules WP:3RR. Each of us must not revert the page more than 3 times within 24 hours. I have already reverted the page twice, and would prefer not to revert it a 3rd time.

best, lk (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme is back at it again, removing entire paragraphs from articles, this time it is recently deceased Johnny J, please help me make him aware that his behavior is wrong. Cosprings (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's acting within acceptable limits, as long as he's not blanking articles, or removing paragraphs that have been appropriately cited (you can cite at the end of the paragraph, if the source clearly backs the information in the paragraph). If you disagree with what he has done, edit it back, and leave a reason in the edit summary or the talk page. If you get into an edit war with him, call me over for a third party evaluation. LK (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science and the real world

Some corrections of your false statements, LK:

Austrian School academics who are on the staff of accredited universities include: Walter Block, Thomas DiLorenzo, Ralph Raico, Hans Hoppe, Guido Hülsmann, Roderick T. Long, Yuri Matltzev, Joseph T. Salerno, Ropert P. Murphy and many more. Both DiLorenzo and Woods, jr. have authored several best selling books.

Austrians tend to stay away from politics, as they are for the most part classical liberals (Mises tradition) or anarcho-capitlist (Rothbard traditions). In sharp contrast to mainstream economists and people like LK, they realize that scientific truths are not decided on ballots, but through theoretical arguements.

Ron Paul, who is a classical liberal of the Mises tradition, was by far the star of the GOP primaries as far as the grass roots go. His money bombs are without paralel in American political history, as the money did not come from big special interest groups, but from ordinary people around the world. According to all surveys, he won each and everyone of the televised debates, usually by a huge margin. No other candidate got anywhere near as much attention when Google did their interviews. His Campaign for Liberty draws tens of thousands of people, especially young people, and this guy is 74 years old.

Many things set Austrians apart from mainstreamers. First off, they reject the use of math and the methodology of the natural sciences when doing economic research, as economics is a social science, something mainstreamers seem unable to grasp. They use a deductive logic, deriving economic laws from known axioms. This method is called praxeology. According to Austrians, empirical studies can only show what happened, not why it happened. Therefore, they don't think one can falsify or prove an economic theory. Even in the cases of North and South Korea or East and West Germany, did they concede that the fall out proved that capitalism is superior to socialism. Mises already explained that in the 1920s in his book "Socialism".

Mainstreamers use flawed and in most cases completely illogical mathematical models or made up scenarios, such as perfect competition, and then try to explain various phenomena from that. Naturally, as their very outset is completely off, they never reach a viable conclusion or are able to understand why things went as they did. Irwing Fisher's statement the weeks before Wall Street and the New Deal policies are ample examples of that.

But like DanielRigal made evident in his questions and LK in his subsequent answers, being right isn't the important thing. Science isn't the important thing. Being preferred by the politicians is the important thing. That's why the US is in the mess it's in now. Mainstream economic theory has dominated the economic policies from the 20th century. Is there anyone here who can actually claim that they've done a good job? Wall Street, the New Deal, the runaway inflation of the 1970s, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the dot.com bubble and the present credit crunch. They're all the reslut of mainstream economic policy. But hey, maybe they'll get it right soon. Untill then, lets ban and cencor all other scientific approaches.

The ironic thing is that mainstreamers like you LK accuse Austrians of ignoring the real world. Tell me, just how much denial must one be in to be able to block out all the economic disaster mainstream economic policies have caused during the last 100 years, and are still causing today?

Do you have an answer to that question, LK?

Misessus (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but I saw my name mentioned in connection with a misconception that we don't care about truth here on Wikipedia. I thought I should explain that it is not that the truth is unimportant, but that it is never the place of an encyclopaedia to promote or arbitrate between rival candidate truths in this way. An encyclopaedia is a mirror to the world that aggregates the current, imperfect, state of human knowledge in one convenient source. It is not meant to be a source of original research or to advocate certain schools of thought. This is why Wikipedia is the wrong venue for advocacy of the Austrian School, or for advocacy of anything else. If the Austrian School is to get increased coverage it needs to go out into the real world and convince its economists, politicians and voters to take it more seriously. If it is able to do this successfully then its profile and influence will rise and Wikipedia will reflect that change with increased coverage. Notability leads to coverage, not the other way round. The Austrian School is notable but only in a minor way. There is enough coverage of it in Wikipedia so that anybody who cares to look it up will find out about it. I don't see how that can possibly be considered censorship, or unfair in any other way. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misessus,

I read Henry Hazlitt's "One lesson" several years ago, and it is indeed an excellently written book, illuminating many salient points. I use it sometimes in the classes I teach. However, economic understanding has moved on from what was known 60 years ago.

I would like to extend an olive branch to you and explain a few things that you might not understand.

• Even the most cursory look at our edit histories will show that the many editors who do not agree with you are independent people with different interests, and are not socks. However, we are united in wanting economics articles to reflect standard textbook economics.

• Economics is hard. Trying to use verbal arguments to do it, is like trying to use geometrical proofs (like Newton used) to do modern particle physics. As an example, consider the question of the pricing of a stock option, or the calculation of deadweight loss from Monopoly pricing in a market.

• Austrian economists are largely ignored by the mainstream. You can do a BA in economics in most schools without hearing about them, and even at the graduate level, you only hear about them in History of Economics classes.

• Austrian economists are ignored not because they are censored, or despised for political reasons (Right-wing Chicago school economists receive accolades beyond their relative numbers), but rather because their arguments don't convince us. While academic economists make verbal arguments, that is just the tip of the iceberg. All the deep issues are fought over using complex algebraical models and painstaking statistical studies that are impenetrable to the layman, but which are nonetheless convincing and comprehensible to the trained economist.

• Most of the people in the econ wikiproject don't mind a bit of mention of the Austrian school, here and there. However, we believe that readers should see a treatment of economic subjects similar to what would be acceptable in a university-level text book, in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPV.

lk (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LK

I'm sorry, but you're hardly the one to teach me about economics. And as far as the science goes, its all but been destroyed by the political trappings and scientifications by the mainstreamers. People like Fisher, Keynes and Samuelson have done what I fear to be irreparable damage.

I couldn't care less what editors like you, JQ, Gregalton think, its obvious you have your own agenda and have no other interest in WP's economics project than to promote your own favourites and block everyone else. If anything has become clear during the last 10 years, it is exactly that the mainstream, textbook vies must be challenged, and what better way is there than to utilize the world wide web?

Pricing has nothing to do with economics, that's entrepreurship. Mainstreamers often confuse the two. Another thing they get mixed up, is that you can't use natural science methodology on a social science. Austrians use logical deduction, which is how you must deal with social sciences, especially economics, as it is subjective, not objective. And tell me this: howcome no mainstreamer have ever been able to offer a satisfactory explantation to the same economic problems that keep recurring again and again and again? Today's credit crunch took most of the profession completely of guard. Columnists are screaming "Where are the economists!?". And they're right in doing so, because most have gone underground and disappeared, not knowing what to do. Except the Austrians, they saw this coming a long time ago. And as for time, the economic laws are equally applicable today as they were thousands of years ago. They don't change just because mainstreamers start to redefine economic terms.

Yes, the mainstreamers surely ignore the Austrians, as they ignore the incredible devastation their policies lead to. Nothing new there.

Chicago shool economists have been intimate with the political class for decades and are as mainstream as keynesianism and neoclassisism. Their view is also very state friendly, so of course they are on good terms with the powers that be. Your proclamations of painstaking statistical studies and algebraic modelling is complete nonsense. I repeat my question: howcome none of the economists who believe in that mush 1) never have seen any of the crises during the past 100 years coming (Fisher case in point) and 2) never have been able to explain why it happened?

Can you answer that?

Misessus (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that olive branches don't work. <Sighs> Just to clarify, the editors who are working to fix the economics articles are not motivated by political reasons; we are working to have Wikipedia reflect current scientific consensus because that's what Wikipedia is supposed to do. If the textbooks ever change so that the Austrian viewpoint is dominant, I'll be happy to work at changing the economics articles.

To answer your questions: 1) it was the 'free-market' Austrian-sympathetic Greenspan that caused this latest housing crisis. Many 'mainstream' economists including Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, and also some members of the board of the Federal Reserve warned that more oversight was necessary over the sub-prime market, or a meltdown would follow. Unfortunately, Greenspan did not heed their warnings, and this mess was the result. 2) The new-Keynesian synthesis does a good job of explaining business cycles, and predicting the various short term effects of different government policies. The augmented Solow model does a very good job of explaining differences in long term economic growth rates.

Please don't leave me any more messages on my talk page, as you don't seem to be able to be civil, and I'm not interested in debating someone who cannot admit he is wrong.

lk (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Technology

This is about wikipedia editing in general; I put it here because you are well connected to the WP community, and someone in your circle know might know how to address the following. (not a big deal)

It would be nice if we could edit the introductions without loading the entire article. Likewise for reordering sections. Blablablob (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm not as well connected as you think ;), and I don't know much about the coding behind Wikipedia. I don't even know where to start to address a question like that, sorry. lk (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, I'm new to this - I'll put this up on my talk or personal page as a back burner project. Blablablob (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR

Very sensible change here, IMO. Nice catch. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The wording seemed strange as fringe theory promoters can insist that no citations that disprove their claims can be included unless the article directly refers to their fringe theory with wording such as "fringe theory XXX is incorrect because ...". lk (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is clear from your comment above, and from your previous comments on my talk page, your resistance to this wording has everything to do with your desire to use WP:NOR to debunk various fringe theories. In any event, the discussion is better suited to the NOR Talk: page, where I've re-opened it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not WP:AGF. I started looking at the page on WP:NOR because I was dragged there by an edit dispute. But that's not the reason I'm there now. I've been cleaning up the page. That edit dispute is NOT the reason I oppose your change. I oppose your change because it contradicts the way most Wikipedians work. lk (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Policy is a tricky thing, half prescriptive, half descriptive. Sometimes it describes an ideal we should all strive for, but often don't reach, other times it describes common practice. The WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV policies were bedrock principles upon which Wikipedia was founded; however, if you were to look back to articles from 2004-2005, you would find that almost no articles actually complied with these policies. We're getting better at compliance with these fundamental content rules, but sometimes people are still sloppy with the policies, even on Featured Articles. This problem is compounded by the fact that the wording, in some cases, isn't as crisp as it should be, and invites abuse, intentional or otherwise. A policy that has wording that makes it meaningless isn't a policy, and the wording needs to reflect the actual intent of the policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point of view. And apologize for getting worked up earlier. I actually think we can work it out on the talk page. lk (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

Please stop vandalising the inflation article as you did when you deleted the text that stated that the real value of companies retained profits and losses are eroded by inflation. That the real value of retained profits and losses and many other items are eroded by inflation is a generally known fact by accountants which you do not seem to know about. PennySeven (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up is not vandalizing. There were several problems with your contribution. I cleaned up the logic and grammar and deleted the more egregiously WP:OR statements. Do try to be polite. lk (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you deleted: "Similar items, for example profits and losses retained in companies, are not inflation-adjusted which result in the erosion of their values by inflation."

PennySeven (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state in the article: "This means that the real value of a fixed nominal sum will depreciate over time. Similarly, prices (including rents and wages) are eroded if they are not inflation-adjusted."

I agree with you.

Retained profits and losses are also fixed nominal sums that will depreciate over time.

Similarly, prices (including rents, wages, retained profits and retained losses) are eroded if they are not inflation-adjusted.PennySeven (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that statement as it doesn't cover an issue that should be in the lead. The lead summarizes that rest of the article. Since the article doesn't discusses the effect of inflation on retained earnings, there should be no mention of retained earnings in the lead. Also, it's unclear whether that statement is correct. The retained earnings of a company are usually kept in bank accounts, and bank interest rates are usually large enough to cover inflation. So, the earnings of the company don't lose real value. lk (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retained earnings are never kept in a bank account, have never been kept in a bank account and will never be kept in a bank account ever.PennySeven (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, where are retained earnings kept? lk (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retained earnings and bank account balances are independent economic items. Retained earnings is a non-monetary item while a bank account balance is a monetary item. Retained profits and losses are non-monetary items resulting from a company´s net operating results. There may even not be or never be any bank account balance to liquidate retained profits.PennySeven (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean different accounting items. If I understand you correctly then, what you mean is that when there is high inflation, the nominal profits of a company will depreciate in real terms. However, you must keep in mind that almost all assets and liabilities owned by the company will change according to the inflation rate – bank accounts will grow, properties will increase in price. Economists tend to believe that moderate expected non-volatile inflation has no real effects. Except to put a kind of 'use tax' on the holding of currency. lk (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean economic items. Accountants account all economic items in terms of money. All accounting items are also economic items. The nominal retained profits of a company will depreciate in real terms at any rate of inflation: low and high. I agree that most assets and liabilities are adjusted for inflation - but not all; for example, retained profits and losses are not adjusted. Neither are issued share capital and share premium accounts.

It is impossible for bank accounts to grow. You cannot inflation-adjust money.

I know that there is a strong school of thought in especially European Central Banking that low inflation has no real effects. I am not so sure of that. The cumulative effect of low inflation mounts up over the years.

That "use tax" you mention is not accounted. Only under hyperinflation. This cost of inflation is generally accepted. It is also generally accepted that retained profits and losses have their values eroded by inflation. As you mention: they are fixed nominal sums.PennySeven (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: If "Economists tend to believe that moderate expected non-volatile inflation has no real effects", why do you state: "However, you must keep in mind that almost all assets and liabilities owned by the company will change according to the inflation rate – bank accounts will grow, properties will increase in price."? PennySeven (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their nominal value will change in line with inflation. However, their real values will not change. lk (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. And what about issued share capital, share premium accounts, capital reserves, retained profits and losses? They are not adjusted meaning their real values are eroded by inflation. Their nominal values stay fixed and their real values change in line with inflation - invertedly.

During the Credit Crunch it was often stated that companies like Freddie, Fanny, Lehman Bros, etc, etc did not have sufficient capital. When they started they had sufficient captial. Their capital accounts have never been inflation-adjusted. It would be interesting to see what their inflation-adjusted issued share capital, retained earnings and capital reserve accounts would look like today. PennySeven (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lk, on this edit you added the statement "Similarly, prices (including rents and wages) are eroded if they are not inflation-adjusted." I find the word "prices" in this sentence confusing. Are not the prices doing the "inflating" for which everything else need be adjusted? Morphh ^(talk) 18:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind a fixed prices/flexible prices model - where inflation in most prices would erode the real value of nominally fixed prices (like wages and rents). However, in retrospect, this is probably too confusing. I'm going to edit to remove prices, and just leave wages and rents. lk (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much clearer. BTW, I've been following the NOR debate off and on. You've been making some good arguments. Let me know if you get to a point where you need some additional editors to help form a consensus. You may also want to make a post to WP:WPMOS since it appears to involve multiple MOS pages. Morphh ^(talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencekhoo,

If you state that "inflation in most prices would erode the real value of nominally fixed prices" does that not also apply to something like retained profits too? Retained profits are nominally fixed. Or would you say only the real value of salaries are eroded and not the real value of retained profits? PennySeven (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The Zhang Heng article is certainly up to snuff. Thanks for your compliment!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

Based on this edit I believe you should file a suspected sockpuppet report. Otherwise, you should abstain from making such accusations. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting we should not discuss possible socks before reporting them? Note that I did not accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I just noted that the editor is a WP:SPA pushing the same POV that has been pushed before. lk (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying that if you feel like discussing suspected socks, discuss them in the proper place: SSP. It's not a big deal. Toddst1 (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencekhoo, please let me know if you are going to delete all my references.

Lawrencekhoo, Since you are very much against any facts about this contribution appearing in the article, please tell me if you are going to delete the reference to a Cambridge University Press publication because I quote the direct reference in the reference. The facts about this contribution will thus appear in the references. Are you going to delete the reference because of that. I would appreciate it if you could be so kind as to tell me now if you are going to delete all the references because I am going to spend a lot of time doing this with all the references and you may delete all of them because you do not want any facts about this contribution shown.PennySeven (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrencekhoo please check the first reference for "Inflation erodes nominal non-monetary values" in Effects and let me know. Thank you.PennySeven (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip mania a go go

Dear LK,

They finally put Tulip mania up on the "Today's Featured Article" schedule for tommorrow (almost today)! With today's (yesterday's) vote on the bailout plan and -777 on the DJIA, it looks like it's gone up on probably the most interesting day possible!

I've read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches on how to monitor changes in the article during the day. Will you join in on monitoring?

We'll see what happens. Frankly, I expect that there might be some problems with people calling today(y) a crash of unprecedented proportions, the sky is falling, and saying the article has an ostrich-like POV.

Not to get too defensive, but there are a few "Crash crazies" out there. I worked a lot on an article that became known as January 2008 stock market volatility trying to convince people that the world had not ended on Martin Luther King's birthday. (See the 1st day's edits, the article then was known as Black Monday (2008)).

Well, it could be interesting. Any help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokies. Will monitor throughout the day. BTW, you guys have done a great job with the article. Congratz. lk (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles_on_recent_financial_market_crashes

Any comments welcome. Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luzon Empire vs Ancient Tondo

Hi. Regarding the Luzon Empire article, I suppose the premise for its continued existence is the paragraph where it says:

"Some contemporary Philippine historians[6] agree with their Chinese counterparts, and are willing to speculate further that after the fall of Nan Song (南宋國, "Southern Song Empire"), Zhang Shijie's fleet and the last Song emperor may have escaped to pre-colonial Philippines and established the Luzon Empire or the Lesser Song Empire (呂宋國)."

The reference ( "6" ) says

"Pangilinan, et al on the initial translations of DongXi Yanggao<!-- is this the same as ''A study of the Eastern and Western Oceans''?--> (東西洋考, Book 5.)"

The article has no other reference by Pangilinan, whose interpretation of the DongXi Yanggao reference is supposed to be the argument referred to. So actually, the existence of an article is premised on the existence of an opinion other than what's in 東西洋考. But is there any thing in that text that actually supports the opinion per se? If not then the question is really reduced to one of whether Luzon Empire of Ancient Tondo is more orthodox, as they refer to the same political entity, right? Luzon Empire continues to exist because the theory of a Chinese origin of Tondo, although not supported by literature, can't be completely disproven? I'd love to hear the opinion of someone who can actually read the references. :-D Alternativity (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the whole claim of Chinese origination is based on the fact that the same character [宋] that is the name of the Song Dynasty was used several hundred years later to phonetically transcribe the name Luzon into Chinese characters [呂宋]. As you probably know, 呂 originally meant backbone, but has fallen into disuse. The two characters together are meaningless, and are quite obviously used as a transliteration to record the sound 'Luzon'.

I think you should make some good faith effort to locate this supposed 'Pangilinan, et al' article, and then delete the claim based on it if you cannot find anything. The book 東西洋考 (lit. East West Oceans Investigations) was written in the Ming Dynasty to record the trade relations with foreign countries. AFAIK, it doesn't have anything about 呂宋 being founded by 宋 dynasty refugees. However, if a specific page in the book can be pointed to, I can ask my wife to check it. If someone wants to defend the rather extraordinary claim made on the page, I think they bear the responsibility to provide the evidence. lk (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jevons paradox

Thanks for the reference. Is there something that can be done about its absolute nature?

Third, fuel use will definitely decline if increased fuel efficiency is paired with appropriate government intervention.

This strikes me as literally false yet almost vacuous: there's no reason to suppose that any such government intervention exists in all possible cases (this is in regard to "definitely"). It seems vacuous since "appropriate" is not defined, and so it could simply suggest that in most cases a government could simply start a nuclear war that would reduce fuel use by reducing technology and population.

In short, I don't think the old wording (pre-reference) matches the new citation: I expect that the absoluteness of the claim is missing, but it suggests some reasonable course of action rather than claiming that some action exists. Would it be too much to ask you to rewrite the sentence? I don't have easy access to that article -- I don't know that my university library has Ecological Economics.

Actually I think the whole paragraph could use more work, but one step at a time. :)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address your objections. The point that Wackernagel and Rees make is that increased efficiency will always reduce fuel use if a 'green tax' keeps cost of use the same. Let me know if you have any other issues. LK (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I didn't want to make the change myself because I didn't have the article. Your changes are good. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars for work on the Luzon Empire - Ancient Tondo merger

		The Philippine Barnstar
		{{{lk, I award you this Philippine Barnstar for your contributions to the merge discussion between Luzon Empire and Ancient Tondo. -- Alternativity (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)}}}[reply]

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		{{{I also award you this Rosetta Barnstar for your effort in identifying faulty translation and unpublished synthesis in the sources used by the Luzon Empire article. -- Alternativity (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)}}}[reply]

Thank you, but I'm not worthy :-) LK (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As per your suggestion, I've given much thought to the name of this article, and the appropriateness of a "Kingdom of" format. In light of this, and the existence now of Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Namayan, I'd like to move Ancient Tondo to Kingdom of Tondo. But I'd specifically like to ask if you have objections to it. I've suggested this on talk:Ancient Tondo Thanks. -- Alternativity (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

You seem keen on ABCT (not business cycles for some strange reason) so please help out. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subprime timeline

I agree with you that this article is bad. I don't know where to begin. It does not mention financial derivatives! How can you talk about subprime without talking about the role of derivatives or the role of the big investment banks. The timeline should be shelved. You are right that it is a POV fork. Since you seem more experienced with this kind of thing I'd suggest that you put the machinery in motion for that and keep me informed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economic freedom

Hi, LK. Would you mind taking a look at Economic Freedom. All attempts to include any reference to views other than those of the Heritage Institute are being reverted by a user with a severe case of WP:OWN. Rather than engage in edit warring, I'm trying to get some fresh perspectives on this.JQ (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a peek at it. Seems like another academics vs non-academics debate.  :(

LK (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LK--Thanks for poking in on economic freedom. You're right about it currently being a messy mashup. It was pretty coherent previously, but POV and with only one perspective on EF. My contribution to the mashiness is desperately trying to get any material and refs in that I can, hoping it can re-work into a new coherency. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'll drop in once in a while to help broaden the perspective. LK (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of the firm

Hello--I'd be grateful if you've got any input on this. The article is a bit confused, and mis-named (at least in terms of how things are discussed within economics). I'm not sure the best alternative name, or how to break things up however.

Also, I disagree with your new rating, but I'll save any discussion of that until/unless the article gets repositioned and more coherent. I appreciate the rating you're doing, since I tend to tag and save rating for an unspecified future time. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think perhaps I shouldn't have made the rating. This is not my field, and I've never seriously studied Industrial Organization. I only have a cursory understanding of what the theory of the firm is. I made the rating as it seemed obvious that as a topic within a sub-field, it should not be rated as 'high' importance. I'll help you fend of POV pushers if you like, but I can't really contribute input beyond that. Sorry. LK (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wage Slavery article

I've written most of the article on wage slavery. I see you've been trying to improve the definition. I want to let you know I like your changes. Feel free to send me an e-mail at [e-mail] 99.2.224.110 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want you to know, I did drop by, but didn't feel that I could add anything useful to the conversation. LK (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of redundant passage in WP:PSTS

Lawrence, regarding this edit, thank you. Sometimes nearly everybody seems to miss the obvious. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I try my best. LK (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: CRA page. (Community Reinvestment Act)

The section I edited appears to present info in a POV way, as a one sided argument (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Other_resources); I'm trying to balance that POV. I gave the opposing POV (NOT my own POV), of Professor Stan Liebowitz.

As of now, all published empirical work (either by academics or the FED) has not shown any relationship between CRA and subprime, as such, the statement that the contention is not backed up by empirical evidence is NPV. Stan Liebowitz's editorial for a newspaper is not a scholarly empirical work.

And The Fed, being one of the parties accused (again, NOT by me) of financial incompetence (allowing the subprime crisis to occur), has its own POV and an incentive (conflict-of-interest) to skew the numbers to "prove" the CRA was of minimal or no importance (many others cited on this page also have such conflicts-of-interest); they are therefore a partisan to the issue on the Wikipedia page, and should be cited as such (whilst citing the partisans on the other side...and citing them as such), instead of citing either partisan side's "evidence" as an authoritative, NEUTRAL (encyclopedic) source, when it is not.

I really don't see how the FED can avoid the blame by NOT blaming CRA. If anything, it seems to me that blaming someone other than themselves would be in their interest. Regardless, the strong contention that a Federal agency cannot be trusted needs to backed up by a good reference, otherwise it's just WP:OR or at best WP:SYN.

If you keep that paragraph as a one-sided argument, then it is you who violates the NPOV policy. So I'd say "Sure, modify my additions, but don't delete them". (NB: As for my minor edit of "they are not economists" that followed that, although I'm stating a fact that's just 100% correct and relevant to their expertise, I don't think it should be included in the final-edit, and though it might appear to be an anti-Fed POV, it's just my attempt to bring attention to the fact that now that there are ECONOMISTS who support The Fed's position, it's a bit redundant (WP:UNDUE?) and really DILUTES a reader's attention from the portion that SUPPORTS The Fed. I'm not trying to be anti-Fed nor pro-Fed, but I also didn't want to delete the non-experts w/o discussion.)

Let me look at the edit again, and I'll post at the page later.

LK (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through it and changed the paragraph at the beginning. The whole section appears to present both sides as far as published reliable sources exist, so I don't see the section as one sided. LK (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant the paragraph (not section) was one-sided. Others on the talk page agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.196.211 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wage slavery discussion

Remember that the "some uses" part describes what "Some uses of the term might only refer to...". In other words, even if there was a "correct" use of the term, and even if we agreed as you say, that "low wages by itself is not neccesarily exploitative - a poor subsistence farmer hiring transient farm hands does not engage in wage slavery" that would have no bearing on the fact that "some uses of the term might only refer to low wages..." especially among the general population, which doesn't always adhere to what academics deem "correct" definitions of terms. NeutralityForever (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uncontroversial use of the term wage slavery is when it is used to refer to situations where power relationships dominate. Conflating this with just low wages is misleading, as the use of wage slavery to refer to only low wages is controversial. LK (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if agree w/you, and even if all those people are wrong in using the term "wage slave" to describe those on low wages, the fact is that the sentence is simply describing what "Some uses of the term might only refer to...". So the correctness seems irrelevant. On a different note, the word "wages"might also have different meanings to different people. To you, it seems to mean simply remuneration, capital or means of survival, but to others it doesn't mean that, so that "low wages" would have a different meaning. Notice as well, that by saying that "Some uses of the term might only refer to workers in a coercive situation" you erode the distinction between "some uses" and "Other[] [uses which]...extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with a coercive and limited set of job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma). —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityForever (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the same token, I can safely say that debt peonage does not fit the definition of wage slavery. Most people consider debt peonage a different kind of slavery--Debt Slavery

NeutralityForever (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LK, do you remember that discussion we had about the "pragmatism" of the change from "wage slavery" to "wage work" and your POV allegations about the inclusion of "At about the same time, the rise of big business marginalized skilled workers and increased the numbers of more easily controlled unskilled ones through "scientific management", the open-shop, welfare capitalism and mass violence."? Well, I was finally able to find a free version of that essay describing the "pragmatism" of the change http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/161500532/ and it turns out that it gives remarkably similar explanations and even quotes some of the same authors I quoted, like David Montgomery. It also reveals the shift of "wage slavery" from meaning all wage work, to "low wages", i.e. directly refuting your POV allegations about that issue as well. In contrast, I haven't found any supporting evidence for the inclusion of peonage as the main meaning of wage slavery apart from the producerist "term used to refer to a situation where persons are dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate."[1][2][3] . Here are a few quotes you may find interesting:

"[T]he structural changes associated with the later stages of industrial capitalism, including increased centralization of production... [declining wages...[and] [t]he loss of competence and independence experienced by skilled labor declining wages [in the late 19th century]" meant that

"A critique that referred to all work as slavery and avoided demands for wage concessions in favor of supporting the creation of the producerist republic (by diverting strike funds towards funding KOL co-operatives, for example) was far less compelling than one that identified the specific conditions of slavery as low wages and posited a plausible and empirically commensurate road to freedom (and manhood): high wages."

Producerist ideology was further eroded "by the influx of women and rural workers, both black and white to the cities, expanding the labor pool and intensifying competition within it....[as well as]... the problem of integrating immigrants from the Slavic countries and Italy, many of whom had been recruited into the organization by factory owners explicitly for the purpose of undermining unionism"

"[T]he immigrant wage slave, who was willing to work for less and to cross picket lines, clearly posed a threat to the American wage earner."

"In sum, the increasing prevalence of wage work and ethnic and race divisions that ran coincidental to skill divisions within the working class resulted in ....erosions of producerist contents of wage slavery."

Also "the relations between the AFL and the KOL, were capable of limiting what opportunities were available to articulate resonant producerist claims."

"[T]he movement constituency elected to sacrifice ideological centrality and consistency for the purpose of maintaining empirical credibility. This path, however, also has implications for movement continuance. Once the KOL was no longer able to present a comprehensive ideological and cultural alternative to the trade union movement, there was little incentive for movement members to continue their allegiance."

"[A]fter 1887, as the KOL began to disintegrate as a movement, members and credibility shifted to other labor organizations, mainly the AFL. Without an organization to carry its host ideology, wage slavery no longer referred to a real alternative of wage freedom, nor did it articulate concrete strategy by which it could be achieved."

I think it would be good to condense this material into a few words in the article that explain what the "pragmatism" was all about. NeutralityForever (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. wage slave - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
2. wage slave - Definitions from Dictionary.com
3. wage slave The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.