Talk:Protectionism/Archives/2018

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. 97.100.224.68 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Impact/Living Standards

This section is misleading. The way in which living standards are measured is still in dispute, in particular whether or not "Cost of Living" used in isolation is a good measure, as some economists believe. Clarification on the results of studies, particularly clarifications the authors of studies make in the study itself, would go some way in rectifying this.

Pegrosa (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a relevant quote from the source in question:

"While our goal in this paper is to demonstrate the importance of demand heterogeneity across consumers for the distributional effects of trade, we believe that a promising avenue lies in integrating this approach with a richer supply-side structure to measure jointly the impact of trade through both the expenditure and income channels across consumers. We leave this for future work." Pegrosa (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)