Talk:Jevons paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Jevons paradox has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 14, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
August 31, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
September 15, 2015 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Page was moved without discussion to incorrect title[edit]

The page was moved a couple of months ago without adequate discussion. The move incorrectly assumed that the name contained a possessive. This is incorrect. The original title, "Jevons paradox" is correct. Economic paradoxes do not usually contain possesives, c.f. Allais paradox, Bertrand paradox (economics). A google search (compare [1] to [2]) shows that "Jevons paradox" is the universally favored term. Per WP:COMMON, we should use the term most commonly used by reliable sources, which is "Jevons paradox". LK (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My examination shows those two terms getting almost exactly equal number of Ghits, so I don't think you've proved anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you are searching. Have checked the search links above. "Jevons's paradox " returns 6 hits on google news search, "Jevons paradox" returns 6,900. LK (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what happened, the search for "Jevons's paradox" gave me the results for "Jevons paradox". When I specified to search for the former, I got the 6 hits you mentioned (but note that one was MIT News). So... you may well be right. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the article to "Jevons paradox", and let's see how much trouble I get into. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, aside from bothching the 3-way move that was necessary, which an admin should fix soon, it's  Done. Let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jevons paradox. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ed Glaeser 'corollary'[edit]

In my view, just because someone somewhere discusses the Jevons paradox, that does not justify a paragraph, let alone an entire section based on their discussion. I welcome justifications of inclusion this material. LK (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • (1) Edward Glaeser is not a mere "someone", he's a notable Harvard economist who has been called a "genius" by a Nobel Award-winning economist, while another one said that before he came along "urban economics was dried up. No one had come up with some new ways to look at cities." He's "the Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government, and the Director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston (both at the Kennedy School of Government). He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor of City Journal. He was also an editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics." So, he ain't just any old "someone somewhere", and you must provide an argument here as to why his complementary corollary shouldn't be included here.
  • (2) It's nice of you to attempt to frame the paragraph as a "bold inclusion" on my part, but I added it to the article in November 2016, so it's now part of the status quo of the article, and the only "bold" edit subject to WP:BRD here is your deletion. So please do not continue to remove it unless you have a consensus to do so from editors discussing it on this page.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This has not been long standing. I wrote most of this article, and it was not there for most of this articles history. Harvard economist or not, a discussion in his book does not merit inclusion of a section in this article. I don't understand why you insist on including it. There are many notable economists cited in this article, about more serious work, and none have this type of highlighting of their work. Unless you can show that there has been some discussion of this somewhere else, I'm removing it tomorrow. LK (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, you need to wait for a consensus to remove it. If you do not, I will bring the matter to AN/I for adminstrative consideration. You do not WP:OWN the article, and you cannot ride roughshod over process because you "wrote most of the article". Glaeser is an authoritative and reliable source, and there is a valid argument for keeping his corollary in the article on that basis. You have not made a valid argument for removal, citing nothing except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not sufficient. If you want to be take to the noticeboards, fine, but I would suggest that it's easier and better to wait and see what consensus develops here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I have posted a neutral pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject Economics talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that in a way Gleaser is a primary source (especially since he coined the term himself). Are there other, secondary, sources which discuss this "corollary"? If so, how extensive is this discussion? My sense of it is that it's really not that significant. (Also - how many papers does Gleaser have on this? Was it an off hand remark or is he seriously introducing the term?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (and I'm not near my library at the moment -- I will be later tomorrow) it was a major part of a chapter in his book Triumph of the City. As for papers, someone other than myself will have to check, I have no idea how to use academic indices which show citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
For citations, can try [3]. But for Gleaser you'll find a ton of stuff so need to figure out how to limit the search.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Just for reference, a search for 'Glaeser Jevons' returns zero results on the above search engine. Contrast with searching for "Glaeser real estate". Similar zero results from Google Scholar search and Google News search for 'Glaeser Jevons "Complementary Corollary"'. I can't find any discussion of this corollary in any academic sources, or in any other reliable sources (magazines, newspapers). LK (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)