From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Adding on definition

"There's an abundance of RS that can be cited" /Very well, so don't hesitate to quote them.

"the thoughts of fringe economists" /Hamilton, List, Paul Bairoch, Ha-Joon Chang, Erik Reinert, Reinhard Schumacher( an economist of Department of Economic and Social Sciences, Universität Potsdam, Germany) are not fringe economists.

"crap journals" /This is your personal opinion, those are journals dedicated to economic publications ,so totally legitimate

"A second problem is that the bulk of the lede is now devoted to the fringe view that protectionism is good whereas there is a broad consensus in economics that it isn't" /The aim is not to be for or against protectionism but just to present the arguments and point of view of the protectionists. This shows that you are clearly not objective. If you want to be partisan, create your own site.

Nebere (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)nebere

(I) I'm doing my best adding actual reliable sources to this decrepit article. I advise you to the same, and stop what you're currently doing. (II) Friedrich List and Alexander Hamilton are figures from the 18th and 19th century, their dated and uninformed views on trade are not notable enough for the lede of this article. Ha-Joon Chang, Erik Reinert and Reinhard Schumacher are fringe economists, and the fact that none of the sources attributed to them are from reputable journals in economics substantiates that. (III) Please tell me what the impact factor of "World Economic Review" is, it's the only academic journal article that you added. The rest of the sources are the "FPIF Special Report", "Le Monde diplomatique" and a working paper. (IV) No, we don't just randomly present arguments and POVs in ledes. On Wikipedia, we determine what's notable for inclusion on the basis of coverage in reliable sources, and on academic topics, we typically look for publications in high-quality journals and academic presses. We look to [[WP:DUE] and beware of WP:FRINGE. It's unacceptable to devote three-quarters of the lede on one of the most covered topics in economics to (a) proponents of a fringe theory, and (b) supported by garbage sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"In 2013 Prospect magazine ranked Ha-Joon Chang as one of the top 20 World Thinkers" "Gunnar Myrdal Prize 2003, Wassily Leontief Prize"

"In 2008, Reinert received the annual Gunnar Myrdal Prize "

These are reliable sources, academic presses, so totally legitimate

It is not a text devoted to the debate between free-trade or protectionism/ It is a text devoted to protectionism; The minimum is to explain what it is, what are the arguments and points of view. Otherwise, it is useless to present this topic and prohibit it.

Nebere (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)nebere

(I) The Gunnar Myrdal Prize is given by an association of heterodox economists. Heterodox economists are fringe in economics - good job proving my point. (II) Working papers, magazine articles and articles in journals without impact factors are not "reliable sources, academic presses". (III) This article is about protectionism, yes. That doesn't mean that we throw out Wikipedia policy on WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, and start to cite fringe figures in low-quality or non-academic outlets. If you can't reliably source content, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding on definition

Heterodox economists does not mean marginal but against the theory of general equilibrium, as the Keynesian economists. If you do not even know this, avoid imposing your point of view on others.

These are presses dedicated to economic publications so totally legitimate

It is not a text devoted to the debate between free-trade or protectionism. You are not objective, but clearly defend a political opinion.

Moreover, You do not have a consensus to delete this entire text without valid justification.

Nebere (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)nebere

It's impossible to discuss this with you. (I) You have no idea what Wiki policy is, and seem unfamiliar with Wiki style in general (as shown by how poorly written your text is). (II) You don't know what heterodox economics is, or how it's fringe in the field of economics. (III) You seem unfamiliar with academic journals and presses, having multiple times now claimed that working papers, magazine articles and articles in journals without impact factors amount to being "reliable sources, academic presses". (IV) This article should not be devoted to a "debate between free-trade or protectionism", but to be about protectionism and supported by reliably sourced content. WP:FRINGE directs us specifically to "not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Note that I've never even challenged that the views of protectionists be mentioned in the article, all I'm saying is that the bulk of the lede should not be devoted to the thoughts of a random mish-mash of protectionists, supported only by iffy sources. (V) I don't need consensus to delete wholly inappropriate recently added text. If you want to add text that has been substantively challenged, you do need consensus or the support of other editors to reinsert it into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't "make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". I describe just the general philosophy of protectionism/ I don't say whether it is good or bad. Grammar mistakes don't justify deleting all the text. Nebere (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)nebere
Three quarters of the lede (!) is devoted to the views of a random mish-mash of protectionist politicians and fringe economists. By every conceivable metric, you are making the fringe view that protectionism is good appear more notable or widely accepted than it is. I highly question that you're editing in good faith when you're playing this obtuse. As for your second claim, there's absolutely no way to determine if this is the "general philosophy of protectionism" because the sourcing is so abysmal. These are the poorly sourced and synthesized views of a random assortment of historical figures and fringe economists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This article

It appears this article is being washed in bias from the top. A good example from the lead, "However, they hurt consumers in general". What does that even mean? Reducing that statement down to "Protectionism is bad" bias. A list of policies is not that useful. It includes more bias with "protect" in quotes. Another says "However,...not effective", too many "seen as" and more "helping", with few citations. I believe there are too many highly selective quotations as well. It would be likely that libertarians edit to diminish the idea of protectionism. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced. Your preference for pseudoscience and unfamiliarity with economics does not mean that you can put a BS tag on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hurt refers to pain. This is an economics article, not a medical or anatomy one. The relevant term is perhaps economic loss. 11 out of 14 dot points have no citations at all, disproving your claim. There is no need for dot points in the first place. We want nice paragraphs of prose. User:Snooganssnoogans fails to assume good faith and miraculously is aware of my familiarity with the topic. Lets work together to improve this article. Look at the first sentence in the growth section. It "hurt" but we don't know by how much. Huh? If you knew it hurt then you would now by how much. That section is just a list of selected quotations. Unacceptable. We can see the Development World section start by promoting the discredited trickle down theory and then pushes free trade, both off-topic to protectionism. Shall I continue? This article is a very weak C class. Its not standing up to scrutiny. The neutrality template belongs. This article is being undermined. This is what is ruining this website. More and more, obvious all over the place. Solutions desperately needed. Hello... anyone there to help save Wikipedia? - Shiftchange (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I see absolutely nothing about 'trickle down' in the 'developing world' section - that you seem to think it has anything to do with 'trickle down' economics suggests that you don't understand the concepts and literature in the article. The article already has the 'needs additional citations for verification' tag, which is applicable in particular to the 'protectionist policies' sub-section. My concerns were chiefly with you labelling the whole article with a 'neutrality' tag and then complaining about the contents of the lede (which have absolutely no neutrality problems). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you will find the lead problematic. It doesn't explain notablity. What is so important or remarkable about protectionism? The lead doesn't tell me what it is or why this matters but instead mentions what the outcome of it is and how it is viewed. This is clearly an indication of a lack of neutrality. You are not thinking about the subject objectively enough. Please focus on the points I just made and consider that you are letting a bias dominate. Why are we telling our readers how protectionsm is "seen as" instead of telling them its characteristics. The answer is once again, bias. Policies seek outcomes or specific results but instead this article tell us what it does or doesn't do according to others attributions. "ripple effect throughout the economy" equates to trickle down to me. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Notice the selective response to the concerns I mentioned. Very telling for bias. Assertions that the content is good and that there are enough references when clearly, no. This editor is stopping me from continuing to work on this article. I am reluctant to devote effort to it, now. Maybe they want to own it. All I want to do is to keep improving it. This is indicative of the same problem all over the site. Error avalanche. Consensus is not emerging naturally, the old model is broken. We need an invisible hand to provide the mechanism that guards against these faults. As the Gatekeeping gets worse, tolerance for this will decrease and the exit of active users with increase. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to say looking at this page too I have to say I stand with Shiftchange. this page is totally bias. it seems like wikipeaida has lots of right wingers editing on it. can somebody fix this page. Max.Moore (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

American vs foreign opinion

I would like to point out that several countries don't apply free trade and consider the trade balance as an important factor:

Some have said that China pursues a mercantilist economic policy.

while, Russia pursues a policy based on protectionism according to which international trade is not a "win-win" game but a zero-sum game: surplus countries get richer at the expense of deficit countries.

So, I would argue that the sentence:"There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth"

could be reworded as:"In United States, There is a broad consensus ..."

Furthermore, leading economists advise European country to implement protectionist measures:

Joseph Stiglitz advises the country of the euro zone to set up import licences (a protectionist measure) to fight against their trade deficits with Germany, which he says destroy their economies.

Maurice Allais denounces free trade or the deregulation of competition in the global labor market and thinks reasoned protectionism between countries with very different incomes is necessary.

Shharp (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither the existing sources in the article nor the sources that you bring to bear above contradict that there is a broad consensus among economists (American or otherwise). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The economic doctrine applied by these countries is totally contrary to the United States. Where's the consensus? there is no global consensus in the world Shharp (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The US government doesnt accept climate change =/= "US climate scientists no longer accept climate change".

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't change the sentence about "economists" but I quote the rest of the text that is sourced

Shharp (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You have no right to arbitrarily suppress the work of others without consensus.This flies in the face of the RS .

Shharp (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree to put economists' opinions and countries' economic practices in another section: Impact

Shharp (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

the text is properly written, well sourced, and in the right section

Shharp (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Protectionism. 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:

  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Opening Line

"There is a universal consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare,[1][2][3][4] while free trade, deregulation, and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.[2][5][6][7][8][9]"

This seems like a really loaded sentence. There might be some consensus that economist agree that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth, it doesn't mean that they equally agree that deregulation and free trade has a positive effect. A few sources isn't enough to establish a sentence like 'universal consensus' for such a fluid topic. (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Neverending quotes

We don't want quotations. We don't care what Trump said about things. We don't have sentence after sentence with "According to ..." We write in first voice. We explain in our words. This article is going in the wrong direction. It is quickly becoming a list of quotations and that is entirely inappropriate. We are not that interested in what was said about the subject. We write about the subject ourselves. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Protectionism"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA