Talk:Tobin tax/Archive 3

The difference between hypothetical effects and effects that have already been experienced

There is a difference between hypothetical "effects" and "effects" that have already been experienced. In the text of the article the distinction between these two types of "effects" should be made more clear. I suggest that we use a completely different word for the two types of "effects." Some citations refer only to models and predictions. These should be made distinct from citations which record actual past events. Also the language of the article should reflect that important difference.

The fact that the consequences are unknown stands as a caution to all sides of the debate against using the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance".

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing notes (1)

Greetings fellow editors,

Here is some additional information on edits made on this page:

1. I have returned the quotation regarding the EU summit to the Concept section. I believe it is more appropriate here since it has direct bearing on the concept of a Tobin tax and I expect that this section will be amplified with additional material as more information surfaces regarding this idea. We can figure out later how to organize this, perhaps by using subsections.

2. I moved some material down to the CTT evaluation section where it is more appropriate. I did not review it extensively at this time so I suggest that this be done at some future point.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings all:

Wikipedia has a policy on the clarity of an article, which is akin to readability.

I think we can all agree that the article will be more readable if there is a logical sequence in which readers encounter the various questions of evaluation.

I propose that the question "Is there a difference between the CTT and FTT?" should precede both "the evaluation of the CTT" and "the evaluation of the FTT." My proposal is supported by the following rationale:

The question “Is there a difference between the CTT and FTT?” if answered, would then form a premise to evaluations of CTT and and evaluations of FTT. Questions of preceding premises should come first (for readability purposes).

Therefore I am moving the section "Is there a difference between the CTT and FTT?" to an earlier place in the article.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought a more realistic approach is to name the section heading "Comparing evaluations of Currrency Transaction Tax and Financial Transaction tax." That approach is more realistic because it is so obvious that the two types of taxes have two different scopes: The Currency Transaction tax focuses on currency, whereas the Financial Transaction tax scope encompasses much more: It encompasses the much broader scope of all finances.

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that there are no similarities in the evaluations of the two. It seems probable that there are some types of interchangeable lessons that can be learned. I don't exclude that possibility.

Even so, it is very unrealistic for a heading to imply that there is a 100% identical evaluation that can be applied to both phenomena. The implication is that a phenomenon related to currency is 100% identical to a phenomenon related to all finance.

So a more realistic heading is "Comparing evaluations of Currrency Transaction Tax and Financial Transaction tax."

In that case, the section need not be a preceding premise to "Evaluation of CTT" and "Evaluation of FTT." In fact, then the section is of lesser importance that "Evaluation of CTT" and "Evaluation of FTT," and should therefore appear after the two.

Nevertheless, it should still have a hierarchy level which is equal to "Evaluation of CTT" and "Evaluation of FTT." (Unlike a few days ago when it was placed as a subset of "Evaluation of CTT").

Boyd Reimer (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood Tax

A rebranding of the Tobin Tax is starting to snowball across Twitter and Facebook. Should there be a section on this 'new' movement? www.robinhoodtax.org.uk Weavehole (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)weavehole

No, it is not appropriate to do so at this time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox, advertising platform, or news repository on "events" of questionable significance. Please see the following policies: Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX, Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING, Wikipedia:NOTNEWS.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity and precision are crucial. If we introduce yet another ambiguous eponym into this particular article, this is detrimental to the objective of clarity. Clarity is so important on such an important issue. The article "Tobin tax" is already verging on being too long. If we try to explain yet another ambiguous eponym, the article will definitely be too long.

Personally I believe that ambiguity is the biggest obstacle right now, in trying to explain to readers the 38 years of the history of society's ambiguous eponym "Tobin tax."

For the sake of clarity, we as editors of an encyclopedia, should be willing to sacrifice the peripheral phenomena which attach themselves to "the Tobin tax." Clarity is a part of the "precision" which is described in the Wikipedia policy on "deciding on a name" Therefore I, personally am willing to sacrifice this legitimate press coverage of the word "Robin Hood tax."

If we keep this up, we will have to start a separate page for a Wikipedia "List" of all the eponyms that are related to financial transaction taxes (such as the ambiguous "Spahn tax" the "Volcker tax," etc. etc. etc.) Instead, I prefer using terms that describe, or at least attempt to describe, a phenomenon: For example, terms such as "currency transaction tax" are much less likely to fall prey to ambiguity.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing notes (2)

I have made some alterations in the order of the sections. A logical progression for this article is as follows: 1) concepts; 2) evaluation; 3) implementation. The new ordering is consistent with this framework. There may be issues with connectedness due to the change but this will be ironed out in future revisions.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I distinguished your heading for this discussion from the other one named "editing notes" Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Tobin was a Nobel Laureate is "notable" according to Wikipedia requirement for lead section

To the person who is deleting the fact that Tobin was a Nobel Laureate:

The lead section "should...explain why the subject is...notable" <<That is a quote from this Wikipedia policy .....here >> Wikipedia:Lead_section Therefore, please do not delete this "notable" fact about the author of the Tobin tax. Thank you - Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If references don't mention the words "Tobin tax" -- Should their content be a priority in this very long article?

If references don't mention the words "Tobin tax" -- Should their content be a priority in this article?

The article is getting too long: See this Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Article size. An editor, other than myself, has already tagged this article as being "very long."

Therefore we must set priorities as to what to include in this article.

Therefore I propose that among our lower priorities is the content of references which do not even contain the words "Tobin tax."

That content should be placed in more appropriate Wikipedia articles, such as the following: financial transaction tax, currency transaction tax, Spahn tax, and now the new DeFazio financial transaction tax.

Supporting my proposal is this Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig

I would suggest that Linda McQuaig is an unreliable source. For example, in one article she claims that Paul Volcker is a transaction tax supporter (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/762427--mcquaig-tory-chill-freezes-out-tobin-tax). She provides no support for this assertion. However, a Reuters article shows that Volcker opposes this idea (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BC0MH20091213) and they are able to quote him directly as evidence.

There are two possibilities regarding what could have happened here with respect to McQuaig (not necessarily mutually exclusive):

1. McQuaig is a mediocre journalist: I was able to find a direct source on Volcker's views in a few minutes. If I am able to do this and McQuaig cannot then it casts serious doubt on her journalistic ability.

2. McQuaig is biased (and, thus, willing to be loose with the facts when it comes to her bias): Here is a quote from McQuaig's article:

"What a tragedy that, as this rare opportunity approaches, we are saddled with the small-minded, Bay Street-beholden Harper government. Will we be doomed again to watch the Harperites stage photo-ops of themselves, this time hugging the CN Tower and straddling cannons at Old Fort York, while the rest of the G20 struggles to rein in reckless financial markets?"

A cursory review of articles by McQuaig suggests she is incapable of writing anything without directly attacking people she doesn't like (typically people in right-of-center governments). She is clearly spinning this against a political party she disagrees with (I don't think "staging photo-ops" is a characteristic exclusive to any particular part of the political spectrum). Would she still be saying the same thing if it were left-of-center party members engaging in the same behavior?

I don't know which of these cases is true, but at least one of them must be. In either event, this suggests that McQuaig is unreliable and I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future.

(The other possibility here, not having anything to do with McQuaig, is that Volcker changed his mind between December 13, 2009 (Reuters article) and February 9, 2010 (McQuaig's article). This seems unlikely given the short amount of time between these articles and the fact that he has had President Obama's ear during this period when the Volcker proposals were taking shape.)

Cosmic Cube (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See below discussion Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Opposers" can "soften their doubts" as time passes

• On December 11, 2009, the Financial Times reported the following: "Since the Nov 7 [2009] summit of the G20 Finance Ministers , the head of the International Monetary Fund, Mr Strauss-Kahn seems to have softened his doubts, telling the CBI employers' conference: "We have been asked by the G20 to look into financial sector taxes . . This is an interesting issue . . We will look at it from various angles and consider all proposals."" see source

Notice that Strauss-Kahn took only one month to "soften his doubts."

It is possible that this can happen to others as well.

Therefore we must allow for this possibility in others also. For example Paul Volcker may have changed his mind between December, 2009 and February 2010.

Compare this edit and this edit

Also we must address the question of what is a reliable source: Is the Globe and Mail an unreliable source?

Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I noted that it was possible for Volcker to have changed his mind. I don’t think that he has since then he could have chosen to make a FTT part of his proposal to the President. However, that is just my opinion and that does not count for anything. The only things that do count are reliably sourced statements that are directly attributable to Volcker. The December article provides this. The February article does not.

As for the Globe and Mail, I believe you are referring to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-tobin-tax-the-outr-is-back-in/article1458027. This is an acceptable source on Christine Lagarde’s views since the author directly interviews her. It is not an acceptable source on Volcker’s views. For all we know, the author is simply referencing something he read in McQuaig’s earlier article.

As editors, it is not our job to allow for the possibility of individuals to change their minds. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOTCRYSTAL). If Volcker wishes to change his mind, he is free to do so at any time. It is not our place to speculate if or when he might do so. If he updates his views and makes them known to the general public through reliable sources, then we will make note of that in the appropriate spot in the article. That’s our job. Nothing more.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube: Thank you for doing the extra research in finding a quote directly from Volcker himself.

I agree with your approach of using such quotes as the ultimate authority in cases when there are conflicting reports. But if you hadn’t found that direct quote, then I would have, in good faith, trusted the prominent journalist Doug Saunders. Why? Because Saunders was covering a new event: the meeting in Canada. Therefore, in good faith, I assumed that he had new information coming from that new event.

Thank you again for your clarifying research.

As an aside, I titled this discussion "as time passes," because in the future it could be a place to discuss people other than Volcker. (I purposely prefaced my discussion of Volcker with the words, "for example.")

Thanks again for your research.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I checked this Wikipedia policy about on the reliability of sources and found this quote: "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."

The particular McQuaig article you are referred to in the above (previous) discussion is published by the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper.

Instead of discounting it outright, Wikipedia policy suggests that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."

A provocative style of writing is common among columnists from all sides of the political spectrum. (That is probably done to stir readers to write in, start a discussion, create a buzz, thereby causing more papers to be sold.) I am accustomed to seeing this from all sides of the political spectrum. Yet, despite that common culture of writing styles, it is still important not to tell an untruth. (Of course, an encyclopedic style of writing is very different from the columnist style of writing.)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, telling an untruth is precisely what McQuaig has done. This is not a case of "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y"; it is a case of "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that John Smith argues Y". That's a crucial distinction. There are only two possibilities for her behavior:

1. She did this unknowingly: If this is the case, then McQuaig is a sloppy journalist (and by extension so are the Toronto Star editors).

2. She did this knowingly: If this is the case, then McQuaig is a biased journalist. It need not be something as clear as outright lying. Maybe she really believed what she was writing. However, it then becomes an issue of her not bothering to check facts when the facts she believes support her position.

One of these cases must be true. In either case, McQuaig is unreliable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it needs better sources than this.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

You said of Linda McQuaig that "I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future."

This is a proposal that is of a very serious nature, and it requires careful analysis before we ban all editors from using her again.

First point: The only way that McQuaig is proven false is if it is not possible for Volcker to have changed his views between December and February. But you have already admitted that it is possible that Volcker may have changed his views in that time.

Second point: You also said, "The only things that do count are reliably sourced statements that are directly attributable to Volcker." With all due respect I should point out that Wikipedia policy allows for a broader range of sources than that. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

Third: I should also draw your attention to the article on Linda McQuaig. She is a veteran journalist in the particular field of economics and business. She has written nine books which have been peer-reviewed (this is valued by Wikipedia policy). One of those reviewers was Noam Chomsky.

I admit that it is possible some of her statements may be proven false in the future. But until such time, we have no conclusive proof to ban references to her articles. I consider it a very serious step to deem a source as "unreliable."

Instead of banning a source outright, it may be better to attach a note to the edit. For example when a Wikipedia editor insisted on including a blatant untruth from an author named Cliff Kincaid, I simply responded by attaching a note to that blatant falsehood: Here is the note: .......According to Cliff Kincaid, Castro advocated the Tobin tax "specifically in order to generate U.S. financial reparations to the rest of the world," however a closer reading of Castro's speech shows that he never did mention "the rest of the world" as being recipients of revenue.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate. It is not our place to speculate on whether or not Volcker has changed his views (WP:NOTCRYSTAL). The best evidence we have for his views is in the article I provided. To claim otherwise either on your own speculation or McQuaig's vague assertion is unacceptable. If you reread McQuaig's article you will find that she provides no context to allow us to evaluate her claim. This alone makes it suspect given what is known about Volcker's views. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG). Some points from this policy:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 1) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; 2) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

I do not understand why this is a controversial issue for you. I have made reasonable points regarding problems with a source and made a simple request of other editors to use better sources in the future. Why is this such a difficult thing?

As for the issue of peer review, you seem to have a mistaken view of what this entails. Peer reviews are not sympathetic persons writing kind blurbs to be printed on the backs of books. I suggest you read up on the process of how peer review works in scientific journals. By that standard, nothing McQuaig has written has ever come close to peer review.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

Thank you for your comments. After reading my last comment I can understand how you may have been confused by it. Therefore, I should clarify: Here is the sequence in which things happened:

• December 3, 2009 - 22 supporters of domestic financial transaction tax (within the US only) - 22 representatives in the United States House of Representatives supported the US DeFazio financial transaction tax source

• December 7, 2009 - Supporter of international financial transaction tax in the "G20": Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives source

• On December 13, 2009 Michael Sheilds wrote the selected quotes in this paragraph: - Paul Volcker, chairman of the US Economic Recovery Advisory Board under President Barack Obama, said he "instinctively opposed" any tax on financial transactions. "But it may be worthwhile to look into the current proposals as long as the result is not predetermined. That would at least end all this renewed talk about the idea, but overall I am skeptical about these ideas." source

• On Feb 4 and 5, there was a meeting in Canada which was new. The reporters covering it were not simply repeating what had happened almost two months earlier (McQuiag writes: "last weekend as he hosted the G7 finance ministers in Iqaluit." source)

• On Feb 5, 2010 Doug Saunders wrote this (published by Globe and Mail): "Paul Volcker, the influential mind behind President Barack Obama's dramatic banking-reform proposals, spoke in its favour." source

• On Feb 9, 2010, Linda McQuaig wrote this (published by Toronto Star): "Even the U.S., which had been resisting, now seems willing to at least consider it, after former central banker Paul Volcker recently emerged as Barack Obama's key adviser on financial reform, pushing aside Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Geithner is hostile to the tax; Volcker sees some merit in it." source

With all due respect, I do not see a dramatic "red flag" here. McQuaig's comment is corroborated by Saunders comment, and Saunders comment is corroborated by McQuaig's comment. Both are published in "mainstream" sources: the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. Two months earlier Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives indicated support for a "G20 ... financial transaction tax."

Your use of WP:NOTCRYSTAL does not apply in this case. That Wikipedia policy applies only in case when a prediction is made. Neither Saunders nor McQuaig Saunders were making predictions. Doug Saunders wrote in the past tense when he used the word "spoke." Linda McQuaig wrote the word "sees" which is present tense. There is no prediction here. Therefore the use of WP:NOTCRYSTAL does not apply in this case. On Feb 4 and 5, there was a meeting in Canada which was new. The reporters covering it were not simply repeating what had happened almost two months earlier (McQuiag writes: "last weekend as he hosted the G7 finance ministers in Iqaluit." source)

Why am I going through all of this so carefully? I am not going through this explanation so that I can keep the Saunders (Feb 5) quote nor the McQuaig (Feb 9) quote in the "Tobin tax" article. In the above conversation I already thanked you for your discovery of the direct quote from Volcker.

The only reason I am carefully going through this is because you made the statement: "I would propose to other editors that she ([Linda McQuaig]) not be used as a primary source in the future." I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia, being the helpful community that it is, has provided this noticeboard so that we can get other editors opinions on this issue. With all due respect, I suggest that we bring this issue to the noticeboard before we delete every reference to Linda McQuaig or Doug Saunders in the "Tobin tax" article. I suggest that this action should be taken before any further deletions occur.

I am willing to live with the deletion of the Feb 5 and 9 writings. But it is a completely different situation to say "I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future."

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy response. However, please note that what you have written is unrelated to the issues I raised.

1. The WP:REDFLAG policy does apply here and the chronology you have listed is completely unrelated to this. Some points from this policy:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 1) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; 2) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Volcker's views were known prior to the McQuaig article. McQuaig was making an opposite claim to these views. This is a red flag and qualifies as an exceptional claim, thus requiring exceptional evidence. McQuaig provided no evidence.

2. My reference to the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy is related to your attempts to inject speculation about Volcker's views into the discussion. McQuaig has already failed the test of providing exceptional evidence. Your point that we would have to prove that Volcker could not have changed his mind in between December and February is an example of idle speculation and is inappropriate.

3. As for the Doug Sanders article, I have already stated that it can be used as a source for Christine Lagarde's views. It may not be used as a source for Volcker's views.

4. The only thing I am confused about here is why you expend so much effort in defending McQuaig. Perhaps you would care to explain this. What makes her so indispensable to you?

Cosmic Cube (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

Thank you for your scrutiny of this very important issue. Scrutiny is healthy for pruning ideas. Two heads are always better than one.

I would like to focus attention on one of your statements: You stated, "Your point that we would have to prove that Volcker could not have changed his mind in between December and February is an example of idle speculation and is inappropriate."

I respectfully disagree with that particular statement of yours:

I have already given the example of Strauss-Kahn who took only one month to "soften his doubts." This example shows that my proposition is not "idle speculation."

Our job as Wikipedia editors is to draw upon sources, not to provide our own interpretation. Regardless of whether you or I think that the statements by Linda McQuaig and Doug Saunders are implausible, our opinions do not matter. Our job is simply to bring sources into Wikipedia.

If we would do that task without injecting our own interpretation, then all sourced evidence points to the justifiable belief that Volcker did change his mind between December and February. There are no sources yet which contradict the sources of Linda McQuaig nor Doug Saunders. If you can find such a source, I would be happy to rest my case. But so far, I haven't seen such a source. Therefore, all presently available sources support the justifiable belief that Volcker did change his mind.

See Theory of justification [of belief].

I will conclude with two logistical notes: First, I am combining this discussion with the above discussion entitled, "Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig." My reason for doing so is because this discussion quotes the earlier discussion. This might be confusing for readers who are following.

Here is my second logistical note: Like I said above, two heads are always better than one. By extension, this means that three heads are better than two, etc, etc. If there is a broader the range of input, then there is a better chance of coming to a compromise on this issue. So far my attempts at compromise appear to have failed. Please don't take this as an insult, but I feel that in order to come to agreement on this important issue, I feel that we need more input from more voices than just two. That is why I am posting this discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The title will be: Reliable Sources?: Doug Saunders and Linda McQuaig.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You may link to the notice board discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_Sources.3F:_Doug_Saunders_and_Linda_McQuaig

Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

After posting this discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the following response was posted:

"Rather than ask if an individual is a reliable source, we should ask whether what they wrote is a reliable source. News articles are reliable sources for facts but editorials are only reliable sources for their writers views. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)"

I thanked "The Four Deuces" for the help. I appreciate the insight. I will use this as a guide: For example, if a source is an editorial then I will try to describe it as such in a Wikipedia article. Of course, this should apply equally to all sources.

Also, according to "The Four Deuces" we cannot "[forever] in the future" label Linda McQuaig nor Doug Saunders as "unreliable sources" for facts -- if -- they are writing an article instead of an editorial. The Feb 5 writing from Doug Saunders was an editorial, and the Feb 9 writing from Linda McQuaig was an editorial.

The implication by "The Four Deuces" is that we should take each piece of writing on a case by case basis rather than banning a writer from ever again being "used" in Wikipedia "in the future." (The words "used .... in the future" are part of the proposal in the first entry into this particular discussion. Cosmic Cube proposed "to other editors that [McQuaig] not be used as a primary source in the future.")

I agree with "The Four Deuces" that a "case-by-case basis" is a more rational approach.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you take The Four Deuces' remarks under advisement. There is little more that I can say without repeating what I have already written. I have repeatedly explained the issues and provided policy links to help guide you (WP:REDFLAG and WP:NOTCRYSTAL) but you do not seem to be paying attention. Just answer one question: Why is McQuaig so important to you? I think this is a relevant point in this discussion.

Cosmic Cube (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Actually I have appreciated your help and all the links to Wikipedia policies. (We are all learning about Wikipedia policies in good faith.) The "relevancy" of your last question is addressed by this Wikipedia policy which says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Even though I am human, and am not infallible, I have tried to follow that Wikipedia policy. Please don't take this discussion personally. Thanks.

Peace, - Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My question was not a personal attack. I simply wanted to know what made that particular author so important to this particular article. It was a reasonable question given the discussion. I am sorry you felt that it was a personal attack. I do not see why that would be and I apologize if you felt that to be the case.

Regards,

Cosmic Cube (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See further discussion below in the Talk Page edits section.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion below, I have admitted my error: I should have pressed "Show preview" before I pressed "Save page."

On a different topic, there is a reason I brought up the Wikipedia policy quote which says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The reason was to only to present the quote -not to imply that I was being personally attacked. On the contrary, I try to assume good faith. (In keeping with good citation policies, I had no choice except to provide the source of that quote.) - Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)