Talk:Tobin tax/Archive 4

Mistakes in the lead section now exclusively edited by Boyd Reimer

The lead section (monopolized by Boyd Reimer - standard users can no longer edit it) contains an incorrect ES->EN translation by Boyd Reimer ('0,5% del volumen de la transacción' -> '0.1% of the volume of the transaction'), which allows this editor to link the Tobin name to a 0.1% tax rate, rather than to 0.5% used by Tobin in 2001 (when most currency pairs already traded with 50-times narrower spreads, showing how obsolete the Tobin idea really was even then). But that mistranslation could be a bona fide mistake (and should be immediately corrected by the monopoly editor of the lead section, and a verifiable source for the 0.1% rate should be provided).

It is very surprising however that the only editor still permitted to alter the lead section is the same person who turned the Wikipedia into a soapbox, by inserting several quotes (in total 10% of the Tobin tax page) from a self-published website of an organization whose cited goals include ensuring that "demands for fundamental reform of [..] the International Monetary Fund, were high on the agenda of the Group of Seven's (G7)" (see http://halifaxinitiative.info/content/about-hi ). In fact it would be difficult to find any edits made by Boyd Reimer that would be anti-tax or neutral or cite a peer-reviewed article (as opposed to political views), and thus most of his edits fall short of Wikipedia standards on the grounds of at least WP:SOAP and WP:SELFPUBLISH policies (but possibly also WP:NONENG, because several non-English publications have been translated and quoted by this editor). I'm not calling for their removal - we need balanced articles even for such ideas as 5000% taxation. But granting monopoly editing powers seems rather inappropriate in case of this particular editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWWords (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords:

Thank you for correcting the percentage. Two heads are always better than one.

I can see that you have already discovered how to edit the lead section. (I am also happy that you have thereby discovered that I do not have a "monopoly" on editing the lead section.)

Actually I never did any translation. Instead I simply copied and pasted the content which someone (other than myself) had erroneously translated previous to my first edit of this page. Click here to see evidence that the error in translation occurred before I made my first edit on this page. (look in the section called "Original idea....")

Also see this link which shows the quoted percentage as "one percent" (not 0.1% and not 0.5%) I now included that link in the Wikipedia article, in two places. Plus, I left the old links in place, also. That way, the readers can decide for themselves which link to believe.

Please note that Tobin himself changed his own percentage over the years.

As you look back at my edits you can see that I did a fair amount of moving content from one place to another on this page. My reason for doing that was to make it more readable, and to allow for others to expand the article. When I first came to the article the sections were so long as to be inaccessible to the visitor who wants to find information quickly on a particular aspect of the debate around the Tobin tax. Many of my edits were to allow for future expansion.

I moved things: I admit that I should have also taken the time to double check everything that I moved. But that takes more time and is a work in progress. Wikipedia policy does allow for "works in progress." See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress

On the topic of bias: In my edits, I was careful not to delete any content which was against the Tobin tax. In fact in some cases, I made that content more accessible in the following way: Before I made my first edit, much of the content against the Tobin tax was part of a long unbroken body of text. I broke it up, put headings in and made it easier for a visitor to the page to quickly locate both sides of the debate.

Thank you again for correcting the translation.

Two heads are always better than one.

PS. I am not a representative, nor member, nor donor to the Halifax Initiative. I have never been to Halifax and don't live anywhere near it.

PPS. Wikipedia policy on discussion pages is to enter new material at the bottom of the page, not the top. But I don't hold that against you. See this link: Wikipedia:Discussion_page#Sections

Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes. Mine was to trust Malaga University or rather the owner of the 'eumed.net' domain. Would you care to remove the link to eumed.net on grounds that its 0,5% rate attribution to Tobin is no longer WP:RELIABLE ? It would be nice as well (albeit unlikely) if someone informed the Malaga University that it should not be associated with such misinformation.

Actually, I was a bit surprised with the link you provided, because it was already there, referenced in another section. We both seem to have missed its importance, which is rather sad, because it is our best, almost primary source on Tobin's latest views. All other sources are either less modern or secondary or both - with predictable results: the internet has hundreds of secondary sources 'quoting' (read: copy-pasting) the Spanish translation with the incorrect 0,5% rate. One can easily start believing it is true.

Worse still, all of these secondary Spanish sources propagate the unfortunate adjective ('small') with reference to the 1% tax rate. This adjective is not present in the Der Spiegel English 'original', and we both know that it would be anything but small in currency markets (by orders of magnitude), so it is much safer to remove it on the basis that it is only present in the Spanish secondary translation (which has been already discredited by the 0.5% mistake, see WP:RELIABLE).

And there are some consequences of our 0.1% -> 0.5% -> 1% corrections. Prof. Tobin passed away just 6 months after his last interview for Der Spiegel, so when exactly did he find the time to change his mind after 30 years of staying put with the 1% rate? The rate was 1% in 1971, and it stayed 1% in Sep. 2001 (see our most reliable Spiegel link you so kindly pointed out) - 1% it was all the way, no need to 'modernize' an idea which has outlived its utility. So these two claims attributing modern DeFazio rate of 0.25% and the 0.1% rate (which I indeed once saw in the Oxford Uni tome, but based on a outdated misconception about what retail customers pay in spreads - it is 50-100 times lower nowadays) to Prof. Tobin:

"subsequently lowered to between 0.1% and 0.25%, as we see in later quotes from Tobin in 2001"

and:

"The original tax rate James Tobin proposed was 1%, which was subsequently lowered to between 0.1% and 0.25%."

these claims should be removed by someone, ideally by their original editor (i.e. yourself) if only to avoid instigating 'content removal wars' (and because opposers will probably replace it with 'stayed at the same level (of 1%) for 3 decades while exchange rate spreads tightened to 0.00001').

Thank you for your help with the Wiki ropes. I'm pleasantly surprised by the maturity (complexity) of the rulebook and the richness of the local customs! A veritable culture in itself! WWWords (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords:

Thank you again for your correction of the translation: As you may have already done, I went to the original source at this link, and, yes, "einem" is the German word for "one." (Click here to see translation of "einem.")

Because of the above, I quickly made several corrections to the article, as you can see. After checking sources, I could find no rate other than 1% suggested by James Tobin. Perhaps others can find that information.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: "einem halben" means "half of one" My apologies - Boyd Reimer (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Boyd,

Thanks to your excellent sleuthing we have finally arrived at the truth of the matter. But the story will now take one final unexpected turn. That German-language Der Spiegel link you've just provided above - the true 'ad fontes', will change the direction of our little quest yet again. We shall be following the pronouncements of our Deity once again without questioning His data and research methods as His true and only disciples. My apologies to the Spaniards from the great Malaga University! I happen to have studied the language of the Vedas (well, Business German helped too) well enough to notice that all-important Dativ of 'halb' in The Prophecy of 2001:

'einem halben Prozent'...

And 'klein' is definitely there as well (good you left it unchanged! - prophetic really). Although some more work will be needed to repair the changes we've just made, hasn't our understanding of the Scripture improved immensely? And what a great case study of how Wikipedia triumphs over traditional media... that English-language mistranslation on the Der Spiegel website was rather unexpected - best storytellers could not come up with this number of twists and turns - but true life never gets bored with such things. And we should definitely get a life!

By the way, I did notice the justifiable changes from 'pro-tax NGO' to a 'pro-Tobin tax' NGO. Right, we need to be precise. Or else some donors could think that Halifax Initiative supports the Goverment's attempt to tax everyone by stealth, which is how Malkiel and Sauter claim the Tobin tax would work in the US:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574579903734883292.html

and the LSE-funded study claims it already does in the UK: http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/offon/uk/uk_gotaway.html

By all means criticize these for lack of global perspective, but do not forget to include them for completeness' sake...

WWWords (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Further reading: The true Tobin tax rate discovered by... speculators!

When I reflected on our search for true value of the Tobin tax rate, I realized it was something else: what we did here was as good an analogy of how price discovery mechanism works in speculative markets as it will ever get...

When I initially arrived here, the first thing I did was to search for some arbitrage opportunity: I double-checked the prevailing estimate of the true value of the Tobin rate. I noticed that the market quote was 0.1%, i.e. it was undervalued from what I though the correct value was, i.e. 0.5%, so I went long (Tobin Tax No. 1). I managed to convince sufficiently many buyers so our common pressure caused the market consensus rate to increase five-fold up to the expected 'true' value of 0.5%, so I then went flat (Tax No. 2).

Then came your sudden re-apprisal of the true value from 0.5% to 1.0% - we both agreed and I bought again (Tax No. 3), bidding the price up until the new high you correctly predicted.

But then bad news from Frankfurt hit the global markets, everyone suddenly discovering that German Government refused to pay back any of the money it borrowed from us (i.e. defaulted on its bonds), so everyone started panicking, fearing another Russian or Argentian default scenario. My hypothetical hedge fund immediately decided to go short to not only protect but also profit from from the expected panic selling, unwittingly punishing the Government for their failed promises. I reversed my long position (i.e. sold once to flatten it, and immediately sold once more to open a short position, duly paying the Tobin tax No. 4 and 5). We again made money for our clients (mostly pension funds these days) while the previous optimistic evaluation of the government's value corrected itself down from 1.0%, returning back to my original estimate of the true value (0.5%).

So I flattened the position (Tax No. 6), because the Tobin tax rate was at its fair value now and any prediction about its future change would be a mere roullette wheel gamble from this point. I did not depress the markiet price, because I offloaded my holdings slowly, selling to those who plotted the recent history of the Official Tobin Tax Rate and 'bought the dip', hoping in vain (?) that the rate will soon climb back to 1%.

Notice that our objectively 'pointless' and 'useless' (in hindsight) frantic buying and selling, exerted the appropriate pressure on the market price (displayed as those wild fluctuations of the Tobin tax rate on the Wikipedia pages). This pointless speculation was absolutely necessary to arrive at the final value. The fact that the final rate now reflects the true intrinsic value of what we tried to predict simply required our moving the Tobin rate up and down, i.e. the very thing the Tobin followers are trying to punish - volatility.

Here the value which was initially unknown - the Tobin tax rate, which we had no clue about and thus moved it so badly up and down (by hundreds of percent in a matter of minutes!), could have been just as well a speculative price for cotton, Ford shares, pork bellies or Government bonds.

Yes, we did overshoot the true value by 100% following your market research, so a -50% correction was required afterwards, which was no doubt painful for those greedy speculators who joined us at the very top (of 1%), trusting the Wikipedia quote blindly, thinking that no research work is required to succeed, because speculation is 'easy'. But if the transaction tax (which we paid 6 times) was large enough to stop the two of us - price makers - from speculating altogether... the market perception of the true value could have remained fixed at the initial 0.1%, i.e. 5 times under the *real* true value - you go and tell that to the cotton farmer's kids or indeed to the ever-hungry Government... that they are going to be short-changed 5 times.

I hope this little analogy helped all of us to see the pure evil of speculation in a slighthly more favorable light... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWWords (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WWWords (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith in your comments. However, as you become more familiar with Wikipedia you will become familiar with Wikipedia policies:

This Wikipedia policy states that “talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article,”

Boyd Reimer (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: "einem halben" means "half of one" My apologies - Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

limit the negative effects of globalization

The following paragraph is about to be deleted as it is nonsensical if literally interpreted (if the major economic institutions are pro-globalization and the Tobin tax is intended to remove the negative effects of globalization, then there is no conflict). Perhaps someone would care to revise it?

Another difficulty is that this tax is meant to limit the negative effects of globalization whereas the major economic institutions like the World Trade Organization and the World Bank are essentially pro-globalization.

What's the problem with the paragraph? I think it's obvious that the type of globalization that the major economic institutions favour includes, according to the Tobin tax supporters, the negative effects that the tax is inteded to remove. I'm restoring it. Sir Paul 03:18, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is one of logic. While the WTO and the IBRD and other IFIs support globilization, they are also seeking to "limit the negative effects" of globilization. One statement does not lead to the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.172.213 (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How "recent" is "recently"?

A sentence in this article tells us that Chavez "recently" said such-and-such open the subject. The term "recently" is meaningless in a reference work. Could somebody give us a date -- at least a month and year -- for his comments?

Inappropriate style

That language is ambiguous. Does "in concert" mean an international authority has to agree before Canada will act? Or simply that Canada will enact such a tax unilaterally once it is confident it has consulted properly with other countries' treasury officials? or something else?

That's the nub of the issue. Are currency speculators, such as George Soros, a 'useful lot' or are they doing something that ought to be discouraged?

I'm moving these sections to talk pending some rephrasing: they seem to be framed in a register not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sir Paul 03:12, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Here is recent

President Chirac has come out with an international tax proposal which seems to have a Tobin like tax component.

My changes

Opinion are divided between who believes that the Tobin tax would improve the economy of countries that are damaged by financial speculation and defenders of pro-globalization goals that believe that it would constrains globalization in ways which conflict with the policy of economic institutions like the World Trade Organization and the World Bank and would have then to be rejected. Other people argues that the tax would promote globalization but limit its negative effects. That's good? (I hope I didn't make any mistake with English)

I put a new paragraph about Tobin's view on his own tax and antiglobalization movement (it's not NPOV to put Tobin's critic behind the link at the bottom of the page) and reorganized a little bit the page--Juliet.p 15:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Juliet, and Query about Spahn

I'm going to trim what I think is an excessive bit of wikification. "Commission of Finance and Budget in the Belgian Federal Parliament approved the bill implementing the Spahn tax (version of the Tobin tax proposed by Paul-Bernd Spahn)."

Spahn doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than this tax proposal. So it seems unnecessary duplication to have a bio article on him and an article on his proposal ... why not just a bio article which will discuss his proposal? Anyone looking for this info should be able to find it that way.

Query, though: does he really hyphenate his first name? I've seen the name without that hyphen. --Christofurio 18:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me, as a newcomer to the subject, that the principal effect of a Tobin tax is to protect political over- and under-valuations of currency against the corrective levelling effect of speculation. This supports mercantilism, rather than one-worldism of whatever flavor. —Tamfang 17:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Every tax has at least two effects -- one depending upon what it deters, the other depending upon what is done with the money it generates. Some of the Tobin tax advocates want to deter currency speculation, which they regard as xcessive and destabilizing. You have a point -- this might be regarded as the defense of mercantilism. Other advocates (or the same ones at different times) are more concerned with what good things can be done with the money that'll be raised. User 82 has a point too. If one dislikes the idea of a world govt., one might plausibly suspect that this tax is a scheme for funding such a thing, and one would oppose the latter in order to oppose the former. --Christofurio 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

link to Der Spiegel for citation

There is a Spiegel citation concerning the Tobin interview, but the words are a bit different than those mentioned in the wiki article http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,154539,00.html

Section on Effectiveness was removed

Appeared to be plagiarized from a textbook, if you wrote this please cite all sources before reverting. --AF985 11:51, 23 June 2007 (CST) Was first added by user Harald Hau on 23 April 2006 along with many edits from an IP user, I think it may have been original research from this.

UK August 2009

The Chairman of the UK financial services authority, Lord Turner, made a speech on the 26th August 2009 in which he supported, or stated that he might come to support the introduction of the Tobin Tax as part of tightening up the London Market's regulatory environment. I have no press references for this, but the Guardian's economics editor published an article “Forgotten brainchild that could transform the banking casino”. I don't know if this was a retraction by the Guardian of the line suggested in the main article, but should this be added to the links list.

--DaveLevy (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is a Guardian editorial even an authoritative enough source to quote in this context? it's certainly evidence of some opinion against the tax, but fails to make a case - it's no more than an assertion that any implementation of the tax would lead to loss of liquidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.140.133.254 (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it's simply assertion. I'm removing it. /Strausszek (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tobin's original words

Provoked by the UK debate I wondered how the tax would work and have found some information on the proposals, I have written the following,

Princeton Encyclopedia of World Economics, from Google Books has an entry on Professor Tobin, which states that the Tax was first articulated in a paper called, “Prospects for Macro-economic Policy”, published in The New Economics One Decade Older by the Princeton University Press 1974, and developed in “A Proposal for Monetary Reform” in Eastern Economics Journal in 1978. In 1996, he revised his ideas in the light of developments over the previous 22 years, in the Prologue of, “The Tobin Tax: Coping with Financial Volatility, edited by Mahbub ul Haq, New York, OUP. The Princeton Encyclopedia also references Keynes, 1936 in the "General Theory" as arguing that a tax on Securities would reduce speculation.

but it is clearly lifted from the Google Books page.

What's the rules? Is this copyright? Can we point at other Encyclopedia, or is my lifting of the source list fair use?

--DaveLevy (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Introductions

The third intro paragraph opens a quote, but doesn't close it(?). Also, the third and fourth intro paragraphs seem to have a bit too much 'practice'/politics in them, as oppose to explaining the theory. Maybe they would be more appropriate in the debate section.

--(JoeSpaceTime (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Please attach dates to your contributions: to follow Wikipedia guidelines

When making contributions please follow the Wikipedia guidelines for using precise language in dating events or dating statements made by economists and other figures. (Click here for details) Thank you.

Here is a quote from that Wikipedia policy: "Remember to always use precise language when writing about future or current events. The statement should make sense to a reader years into the future, even if the information has changed."

Dates are crucial for the readers to understand the contexts in which events and statements occur.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please contribute your ideas on a new structure for this article which provides historical context

Please contribute your ideas on a new structure for this article which provides historical context. Economic situations are constantly changing -- both regionally and globally. Therefore I propose that we need a better structure for this article to reflect that reality of constant change.

Some parties who supported the Tobin tax in the past are no longer supporting it. (ie. the Government of Canada)....and some parties who did not support the Tobin tax in the past are now supporting it. Also, no one knows the future. (not even all of us wise Wikipedia editors)

At present the article is not set up for readability because it is not set up chronologically. Should we set it up in a strictly chronological way? If so, then that would mean reorganizing existing contributions.

Providing context is crucial to enable the readers to understand the arguments both for and against the Tobin tax.

Please contribute your thoughts on this. Thank you.

Is there a Wikipedia guideline or formula for this problem?

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a new article called "Financial transaction tax"

There's a new article called "Financial transaction tax."

Evidence for the need for this article: The category of "Financial Transaction Taxes" is more broad than the existing article on "Tobin tax."

The need for this new broader article became especially apparent in the "Debate" section of "Tobin tax": I discovered that the debates were "comparing apples with oranges." It is important to instead compare apples with apples. That is the only way that we will be able to have a clear debate that makes sense.

For example in this section some Wikipedia editors where providing sources who were discussing the Swedish experience of a transaction tax on the purchase or sale of equity securities, fixed income securities and derivatives. They were not even discussing a tax on global international currency trading, which is what this "Tobin tax" article is about.

In light of the need to compare apples with apples, some of your arguments would be more appropriately placed in the new article. Why? Because it covers the more general topic of all types of financial transaction taxes instead of only the more specific topic of currency transaction taxes.

(By the way, even within the topic of currency transaction taxes there are also subdivisions. For example, the Spahn tax is a second type of currency transaction tax.)

For those of you who want to provide sources which are debating the more general topic of all financial transaction taxes, there is now a new place to provide those sources: Click here to go to the Debate section of the article called "Financial transaction tax"

A clear debate is a better debate.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyd,

Funny you should single out the Swedish experience, i.e. the abolished tax case (and there were other examples of that - waiting to see the sunlight here) while forgetting the British one, exclusively applied to stocks, and the US DeFazio proposal, which includes stocks as the main source of funding projections. A tax on currencies is a pure theory as far as I know, because this is the most global, most OTC, most professional market, and margins are thinnest, i.e. evasion would be easiest and revenues would be lowest - yes, it is much easier to tax the sheep, i.e. individual investors "like you and me".

A propos of "you and me", to the two articles on the subject, provided by myself a few lines above (which I still hope you will kindly notice one day), I ask you now to provide a third one, and probably the most autoritative of the three:

http://www.houndbite.com/?houndbite=22866

I hope it is permissible to link such audio material on Wikipedia? I have some grounds to think that it was posted by the presenter himself.

Thanks!

WWWords (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyd,

I turns out that the distinction between the Tobin tax and 'other' transaction taxes is redundant, and so is probably the newly created separate Wiki article for these taxes... The distinction was based on the premise that Tobin wanted to tax currencies alone (as opposed to other instruments such as stocks, futures, etc.). Nothing could be further from the truth. Tobin (1978) intended to tax *all* financial instruments (a tax 'on currency' is quite distinct from taxes on on 'financial instruments *denominated* in another currency' proposed by Tobin). More importantly, Tobin proposed to tax international trade payments as well, i.e. services and real assets (property etc.):

"I must remain skeptical that the price signals these unachored markets give are signals that will guide economies to their true comparative advantage, capital to its efficient international allocation, and governments to correct macroeconomic policies. This is why I think we need to throw some sand in the well-greased wheels. [..] It would be an internationally agreed uniform tax, administered by each government over its own jurisdiction. [..] The tax would apply to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency - from currency and coin to equity securities. It would have to apply, I think, to all payments in one currency for goods, services, and real assets sold by a resident of another currency area. I don't intend to add even a small barrier to trade. But I see offhand no other way to prevent financial transactions disguised as trade [..] I do not want to claim too much for my modest proposal. It will, I think restore to national economies and governments some fraction of the short-run autonomy they enjoyed before currency convertibility became so easy."

Source: Tobin, James, 1978. A Proposal for International Monetary Reform. Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 506, Cowles Foundation, Yale University, p. 158-159 [ URL: http://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/506.html ]

And this is probably a more relevant quote for the lead section, don't you agree?

WWWords (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords,

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Two heads are always better than one.

Point one

Since the concept of financial transaction taxes existed before Tobin (with Keynes), this means that the "Tobin version" is only one version of its mother. Because of the sequence of events, the "Tobin tax" is a child of its parent, "financial transaction tax." The Tobin tax is a more specific term under the "umbrella" of the more general category of "financial transaction tax." In other words, the sequence of events created a situation in which "financial transaction tax" is the genus and "Tobin tax" is the species.

Point two

The Tobin tax article "lead section" has a quote from Tobin himself which summarizes his concept. This Wikipedia policy states that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic...." Based on that Wikipedia policy, any variations that Tobin added to his core concept, and any detailed explanations of those variations belong in later sections of the article instead of in the lead section.

Point three

I have read your above quote from Tobin. It is important that we read that quote properly. For that reason, I have copied and pasted the exact same quote, but I have made certain words bold in order to draw attention to its core meaning. (For those following, part of the quote is on page 159, first paragraph at this link)

"The tax would apply to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency - from currency and coin to equity securities. It would have to apply, I think, to all payments in one currency for goods, services, and real assets sold by a resident of another currency area. ..."

Thank you again for your contribution to this discussion.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords:

A clear debate is a better debate:

In the pursuit of clarity, we must first define what we mean by "Tobin tax."

Tobin may have suggested many different types of financial transaction taxes in his lifetime, but what has society associated with the term "Tobin tax?" Has society associated the term "Tobin tax" with specifically a currency transaction tax?

If so, then this article is about a term which society has created. The article is not about all of the transaction taxes that have been proposed by Tobin in his lifetime.

This is similar to the term Crohn's disease which was named after Burrill Bernard Crohn. Burrill Bernard Crohn did other work in his life besides work on Crohn's disease. But he is known for that disease. Therefore it was society which made the traditional association, not Crohn himself.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My Jan 21, 2010 edits

My Jan 21, 2010 edits of the Tobin tax article are supported by the following Wikipedia policies:

Policy 1

The Wikipedia policy on Naming conventions, and deciding on an article name has this quote:

Begin Quote:

"... the ideal title is:

• Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
• Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
• Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
• Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)

(end Quote)

In the Tobin tax article, we have a conflict between the above first two items and the last two items: "Recognizable" and “easy to find” are conflicting with “precise” and “concise.”

This is occurring because the term “Tobin tax” means different things to different people in society. Some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.”

Policy 2

This Wikipedia policy outlines the “No original research” guideline. It should be used as a guideline to help editors reflect the views of society on the Tobin tax (as opposed to the views of Wikipedia editors). This means reflecting all the views, and not just some. This means that we must reflect the fact that some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.”

Policy 3

This Wikipedia policy gives ideas on how to format evaluations of a given topic. This will help us with the “Debate” section. In order to reflect Wikpedia policy, I propose that we change the name of the “Debate” section to “Evaluation”

Some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.” Therefore I propose that we create two sections:

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax specifically as a currency transaction tax (CTT)

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax as a general financial transaction tax (FTT)

Other helpful policies

Here are some other Wikipedia polices which will help with the Tobin tax article:

This Wikipedia policy cautions against “threads of conversation”

This Wikipedia policy cautions against “pros and cons lists”

This Wikipedia policy discusses words that may advance a point of view

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of section heading

Keynes developed his transaction tax in 1936, 18 years after Tobin was born. Therefore the Keynes transaction tax did not come “before Tobin” as the previous section heading suggests. Rather the Keynes transaction tax came before the Tobin “tax on foreign exchange transactions”

Also, Tobin used the words “tax on foreign exchange transactions” to describe his idea. That phrase is more specific and accurate than simply using the word "Tobin."

Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reason for removal of Keynes personal life info

Note to the person who added info about Keynes personal life:

Not myself, but a different editor, cautioned us about the length of this article. (see this edit)... This Wikipedia policy on article size states that if an article is too long then some personal computers experience technical difficulty in opening it. That's why editors should be aware of "priorities of relevance" even in footnotes. I propose that information about Keynes personal life is not relevant enough to the Tobin tax to be included. I suggest that this content would be more appropriate in a different article in Wikipedia, perhaps in the article on Keynes himself.Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Should there be two separate independent headings for the evaluations of FTT and CTT?

(Acronyms explained: "Financial Transaction Tax" is FTT and "Currency Transaction Tax" is CTT)

Should there be two separate independent headings for the evaluations of FTT and CTT even though CTT is a subset of FTT?

I propose that there should be two separate independent headings.

Wikipedia policies used in the below rationale

The Wikipedia policy on Article titles has the following quote: "This guidance also applies to Section headings."

That Wikipedia policy on Article titles also contains the following quote:

"Article titles should conform to Wikipedia's naming conventions"

The Wikipedia policy on naming conventions contains the following quote in the section on "deciding on a name":

"the ideal title is ....precise"

Rationale

In the article on "Financial transaction taxes" you will notice that there is a section which lists all the types of "Financial Transaction taxes." Among those types of Financial Transaction Taxes are Currency transaction taxes such as the Tobin tax.

The hierarchy from that article is shown in the following diagram:

MAIN CATEGORY: Different Types of Financial Transaction Tax

• Currency Transaction tax:

• • Tobin tax

• • Spahn tax

• Stamp Duty Reserve Tax

• Swedish

• Peruvian

Unlike the above diagram, this article is about the "Tobin tax." It is not about "Financial Transaction Taxes."

Therefore the concept of "subset" is applied to the Tobin tax as follows:

MAIN CATEGORY: Different "Interpretations" or "Types" of Tobin tax:

• Interpretation one - Financial transaction tax

• Interpretation two - Currency transaction tax

Different parts of society have adopted different interpretations of a "Financial Transaction tax." In the same way, different parts of society have adopted different interpretations of a "Tobin tax." Just as we categorize the different interpretations of "Financial Transaction Tax," we should also likewise categorize the different interpretations of "Tobin tax." After we do so, the complete diagram looks like this:

MAIN CATEGORY: Different Types of Financial Transaction Tax

• Currency Transaction tax:

• • Tobin tax:

• • • Interpretation one - Financial transaction tax (evaluation as such)

• • • Interpretation two - Currency transaction tax (evaluation as such)

• • Spahn tax

• Stamp Duty Reserve Tax

• Swedish

• Peruvian

In response to the above, one might ask, "Then why not create two separate articles?

For example: The first article could be called "Tobin tax (FTT)," and the second article would be "Tobin tax (CTT)."

Answer:

The Wikipedia policy on Naming conventions, and deciding on an article name has this quote:

Begin Quote:

"... the ideal title is:

• Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for :the topic of the article.
• Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to :which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
• Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the :article unambiguously.
• Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that :part brief.)

(end Quote)

In the Tobin tax article, we have a conflict between the above first two items and the last two items: "Recognizable" and “easy to find” are conflicting with “precise” and “concise.”

This is occurring because the term “Tobin tax” means different things to different people in society. Some people in society view the Tobin tax as a “currency transaction tax,” whereas some people view it as a more general “financial transaction tax.”

In an ideal world we would never be this confusing. But as is the case with all eponyms, there is a historically recurrent lack of clarity concerning eponyms. This is explained in the section called, The lack of clarity over the definition of the Tobin tax. Please take a moment to read it. Thank you.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation as the primary concern when establishing section hierarchy

If the "evaluation" of different types of taxes is more important than their "subset classification," then clarity is better served to organize sections according to their "evaluation" instead of their "subset classification." A reader looking for a tax that functions properly would then find it more quickly. With evaluation as being the primary concern for establishing hierarchy of sections, then below is a diagram showing that priority:

MAIN CATEGORY: Tobin tax:

• History

• Projects

• Evaluation:

• • Evaluation of Interpretation one - Financial transaction tax

• • Evaluation of Interpretation two - Currency transaction tax

The above hierarchy is fine with me.....except it has a technical problem: At present we have three levels of hierarchy. If we create a fourth, then the font in the lower levels of hierarchy become indistinguishable from each other, and it becomes difficult for the reader to navigate. (especially on such a long page).

Additional Rationale: Can an attribute be applied to everything within its section?

Consider the section entitled "Is there an optimum tax rate?" Can its answer, as "a descriptive attribute" of everything within its parent section, be applied to everything within its parent section? If not, then clarity and precision is not best served with that hierarchy.

Here is a detailed explanation: Let us refer to the answer to the question "Is there an optimum tax rate?" as "descriptive attribute 'A'"

If the evaluation is unbias, then, in our section hierarchy, we must allow for possiblity that the answer to the question in that heading may be "no" for FTT, but "yes" for CTT.

Therefore "A" may be an attribute of one but not the other.

We must allow for the possibility that "A" is not an attribute of both FTT and CTT.

That is why FTT and CTT must be in two separate sections which are completely independent of each other.

That remains true regardless of whether or not CTT is a subset of FTT.

Extension of the above rationale

The above rationale is true not only for "attribute A" but it is also extended to other evaluative questions. Perhaps that rationale cannot be extended to all evaluative questions, but it can be extended to enough evaluative questions so that clarity is best served when the two sections FTT and CTT are separate.

Clarity is a part of the "precision" which is described in the Wikipedia policy on "deciding on a name"

Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the financial world, "Tobin tax" and "Financial Transaction Tax" are used interchangeably; they generally mean the same thing. Of course, Tobin's original idea was specific to currency transactions, but when someone says "Tobin tax" today they usually mean "financial transaction tax", probably because anyone that likes the idea of a currency transaction tax also favours transaction taxes on a broader group of financial transactions(except Tobin himself?). In fact, I don't think I have heard ANYONE arguing for a currency transaction tax that doesn't also favour a more general financial transaction tax, even if such proposals do not include every financial transaction (regular bank transactions (transfers etc) are probably exempted, government bond transactions also exempted due to government's need for liquid bond markets to finance their own debts at the lowest possible borrowing cost).

Benwm (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Benwm:

Thank you for your interest in this important article. Two heads are always better than one.

You mentioned that "I don't think I have heard ANYONE arguing for a currency transaction tax that doesn't also favour a more general financial transaction tax"

With all due respect, I must remind you that just because you haven't heard of anyone like that, doesn't mean that there is no one like that. (See Argument from ignorance)

Also, regardless of whether or not there is anyone like that, it is still important to make distinctions and clear definitions: Without a consistent and clearly defined definition of what the Tobin tax actually is, it then becomes impossible to use the scientific method and economic impact analysis to evaluate the Tobin tax.

You will find that large numbers of people are very concerned that the currency transaction tax is put place without any other financial transaction taxes put in place. For example, consider this quote and see its source: "The tax is designed to help stabilize exchange rates by reducing the volume of speculation. And it is set deliberately low so as not to have an adverse effect on trade in goods and services or long-term investments."source (Click here to see those words in this section of the article.)

The distinction between currency transaction taxes and other financial transaction taxes is further explained in the section called, The lack of clarity over the definition of the Tobin tax. Please take a moment to read it. Thank you.

Without a consistent and clearly defined definition of what the Tobin tax actually is, it then becomes impossible to use the scientific method and economic impact analysis to evaluate the Tobin tax. In order to clarify this, Spratt divided his work into two sections:

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax specifically as a currency transaction tax (CTT) source

• Evaluation of the Tobin tax as a general financial transaction tax (FTT)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Boyd. I take on board your points. But I wonder what makes currency transactions a special case from other financial transactions. Should there therefore be a separate page for equity transaction taxes, housing transaction taxes, bond transaction taxes, commodity transaction taxes, mortgage transaction taxes, bank account transaction taxes, options transaction taxes, futures transaction taxes, derivatives transaction taxes,etc? Every one of these is type a financial transaction tax. The list is endless if you want to break down all of the different possibilities for financial transaction taxes, I am not sure what makes 'currency transactions' unique from other types of financial transactions, aside from the fact that Tobin's original idea was specific to currency transactions. Perhaps this is relevant. From a practical point of view though, it might be better to have a single page for financial transaction taxes that encompasses all of the relevant information and experiences with financial transaction taxes. It would be interesting to hear other editors opinions on this matter.

Benwm (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Benwm:

Wikipedia policy has no minimum size for articles: This Wikipedia article section on stub articles contains this quote: "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion." :So I suppose that yes, there could conceivably be an article on all of those types of taxes you mentioned. Please read Wikipedia:Stub for more guidance on that.

As you can see, there is already a substantial article on Currency transaction taxes and its sub categories, such as Spahn tax etc.

The reason for a separate section within "Tobin tax" that has the distinct heading Evaluating_the_Tobin_tax_specifically_as_a_Currency_Transaction_Tax is because of this discussion on society's mixed definitions of Tobin tax, and the resulting confusion that occurs when we try to evaluate each of those many definitions. Please read all these links. Thanks.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another point: Let's analyze your list of financial transaction taxes: "equity transaction taxes, housing transaction taxes, bond transaction taxes, commodity transaction taxes, mortgage transaction taxes, bank account transaction taxes, options transaction taxes, futures transaction taxes, derivatives transaction taxes."

In the present article on financial transaction tax, the second [defining] sentence reads as follows: "This term has been most commonly associated with the financial sector, as opposed to consumption taxes paid by consumers." Consumption taxes are for goods and services. I suggest that we should remove "bank accounts" from your list because it is a service. Also, I suggest we remove "housing" from your list because it is a "goods." Neither is associated with the financial sector.

Mortgages are financial transactions and are essentially already effectively taxed in many jurisdictions with Land Transfer taxes.

Also in your list, I should point out another distinction: Commodities trading would fall under the category of "financial transaction tax," but would not fall under the category of "currency transaction tax" because commodities are not the same as currencies. Here is one of the differences (among others): commodities are "goods," whereas currencies are not "goods."

Wikipedia already has a section on "kinds of taxes."

Subcategorization and clarity are Wikipedia policy (along with precise headings). (See above links to those polices.)

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect Boyd, your logic is muddled. Are you not a consumer, when as an individual you seek the services of a bank or a firm or individual employed in the financial sector? Please tell me makes bank account transactions different from any other financial transactions? We are all consumers of the financial sector, as you know. And how can you say that housing is not associated with the financial sector? The housing crisis is inextricably linked with the financial crisis, mortgage lending is a central arm of most bank's activity. Most of us cannot purchase a home without being 100% reliant on the financial sector when we seek out a mortgage to finance the transaction.

And whilst commodities delivered here and now are goods, the same cannot be said for commodity futures, which are used by farmers to hedge their financial risks. The only difference being that one is purchased today (spot) and the other is purchased tomorrow (future).

There is also not such a rigid separation between commodities such as Gold, and currencies. For many, Gold is considered to be a de-facto currency, the ultimate store of value. An excellent book on this subject is "The Goldwatcher, Demystifying Gold Investing", by John Katz & Frank Holmes. In truth, the distinction between unbacked fiat (paper) currencies and Gold backed currencies (100% convertible into Gold) is blurred. It is is only in recent economic times that currencies have NOT had received the full backing of Gold, which is perhaps why you consider there to be such a distinction. Indeed, some argue that many of the modern economic problems began in 1971 when US President Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard.

Benwm (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

General Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) or specific Currency Transaction Tax (CTT)?

See also: Financial transaction tax and Currency transaction tax

The term "Tobin tax" has sometimes been used interchangeably with the idea of a general financial transaction tax (FTT). Other times it has been used interchangeably with the idea of a specific currency transaction tax (CTT). here and here and here A look at history helps us understand this ambiguity:

The concept of a general financial transaction tax did not originate with Tobin: In 1936, John Maynard Keynes proposed that a transaction tax should be levied on dealings on Wall Street, where he argued that excessive speculation by uninformed financial traders increased volatility. For Keynes (who was himself a speculator) the key issue was the proportion of ‘speculators’ in the market, and his concern that, if left unchecked, these types of players would become too dominant. Keynes writes:

"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the situation is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."

"The introduction of a substantial government transfer tax on all transactions might prove the most serviceable reform available, with a view to mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise in the United States."

In 1971, Tobin transferred Keynes' idea to exchange markets, as we see in this 2001 quote from Tobin:

"I am a disciple of Keynes, and he, in his famous chapter XII of the General Theory on Employment Interest and Money, had already prescribed a tax on transactions, with the aim of linking investors to their actions in a lasting fashion. In 1971 I transferred this idea to exchange markets."source

Today, there are examples of the term "Tobin tax" being used interchangeably with both a "financial transaction tax" (FTT), and also a "currency transaction tax" (CTT), as we see in these quotes:

An example of the term "Tobin tax" being used interchangeably with the idea of a general "financial transaction tax" is shown in the following media description of a 2009 European Union summit:

European Union leaders urged the International Monetary Fund on Friday to consider a global tax on financial transactions in spite of opposition from the US and doubts at the IMF itself. In a communiqué issued after a two-day summit, the EU’s 27 national leaders stopped short of making a formal appeal for the introduction of a so-called “Tobin tax” but made clear they regarded it as a potentially useful revenue-raising instrument.

On the other hand, an example of "Tobin tax" being used interchangeably with "currency transaction tax" is shown in the following excerpt from a 2001 publication:

"The concept of a Tobin tax has experienced a resurgence in the discussion on reforming the international financial system. In addition to many legislative initiatives in favour of the Tobin tax in national parliaments, possible ways to introduce a Tobin-style currency transaction tax (CTT) are being scrutinised by the United Nations...."source

The scope of a "currency transaction tax" focuses specifically on currency, whereas the scope of a "financial transaction tax" refers to all aspects of of finance in general. Therefore the evaluations of those two will likewise have two different breadths of scope. This difference was recognized by Stephen Spratt in his writings where he indicates that a currency transaction tax is a subset of financial transaction taxes in terms of scope. This difference in "breadth of scope" is also described by Linda McQuaig when she refers to both "the Tobin tax – or its ... broader version, the financial transaction tax" source

Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Misrepresentations of 'Argument from Ignorance' in the article

The article makes the point several times that 'because we cannot know what would happen, both sides of the debate should be very cautious about making claims about what would happen', typically related to sections where negative effects have been claimed.

This is an epistemological falsehood - because there IS some partial knowledge and views of what would most likely happen: "Ten studies report a positive relationship between transaction taxes and short-term price volatility, five studies did not find any significant relationship.", which is mentioned once in the article.

It could in ALL cases be argued that ANY policy implementing ANY proposed political, social or economic change does not benefit from a complete and accurate backing of knowledge about what exactly would take place, but this is not usually taken to the extent as to de-emphasise this knowledge and emphasise the impossibility of prediction. If this isn't remedied, any article on Wikipedia on a proposed change could be amended au nauseum with "no completely applicable empirical knowledge from an identical situation has been produced, so nobody should make any claims about what would be produced". It would be more appropriate if this was mentioned only once. 90.220.248.114 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you are raising this important discussion. Here are some helpful links to the words that are pertinent to this discussion:

The "argument from ignorance" is a logical fallacy.

Epistemology pertains to the method of an inquiry. The "scientific method" is also a method of inquiry.

Empiricism refers to "learning from experience." "Learning from experience" means "learning from past experience," not learning from something that hasn't happened yet.

What troubles me about the terminology in the "Tobin tax" article is that the word "empirical" is used to describe "models" that have not yet happened. To me, that is a "misrepresentation" of the word "empirical"

Within the "Tobin tax" article we must develop a terminology which distinguishes between what has already happened, and what is predicted to happen with models. After we establish that distinguishing terminology, then there will no longer be a need to include constant reminders about the argument from ignorance. But so far, I haven't seen that distinguishing terminology, even though I raised this topic over a week ago (Feb 9, 2010) in the above discussion entitled, "The difference between hypothetical effects and effects that have already been experienced"

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel links to epistemology are relevant, but I do not feel you address the point I am trying to make - which is that, if the definition of 'empiricism' you apply (and has been applied in the article) is accepted and held to be accurate, there CANNOT EXIST empiricism within the social sciences.

Although this feels like a very basic point to have to restate, the simple mechanism of social science is that empiricism of the type you demand in order for 'ignorance' not to apply (i.e. an identical measure implemented in an identical geography in an identical situation) is impossible. Therefore, the convention is to accept, with some caveats, empiricism that regards situations which are not identical but similar. When ten similar-but-not-identical empirical studies show that short-term volatility has increased, five similar-but-not-identical empirical studies have indicated no relation, and no studies have shown that volatility has decreased, that should be emphasised far more strongly than the extremely generic and reductionist "We cannot know anything and claims are made from ignorance". I would say that this statement has undue weight relative to the validity of the limited empiricism that exists, and will edit the article to reflect that.

If your perspective is accepted, it would have to mean that EVERY article about a proposed policy on Wikipedia could be filled with this statement. Just to take one example - in the article on Health care reform in the USA, the following sentence is found: "However, CBO found that while broadening insurance coverage might lead to less cost shifting, "that effect would probably be relatively small and would not directly produce net savings in national or federal spending on health care.". Should this be supplemented similarly with 'This is simply a claim and for lack of empiricism claims are subject the fallacy argument from ignorance?

If we should be similarly careful about models, it must be pointed out at several points in the article that models are also inaccurate by definition. This is not pointed out at the moment. I feel it's a stretch to say that empiricism in social sciences is by its nature always subject to argument from ignorance, and the same could equally much be said about models - after all, claiming that a model is slightly or very accurate in predicting the future simply because it hasn't been proven inaccurate, is an argument from ignorance that should(?) be warned about thoroughly as well, or?

I'll hence edit the article to reduce the number of repeats about epistemological problems when I have time.90.220.248.114 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We should both be aware of the following Wikipedia guideline: WP:NOTCRYSTAL (It states that Wikipedia is "not a crystal ball"). That policy should apply to the Wikipedia article on health care reform in the USA also. (Two wrongs don't make a right.) I will now study WP:NOTCRYSTAL to see how it applies in this and other cases. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Source of Intelligence Capital finding?

Intelligence Capital is used as an independent source. From the Intelligence Capital website: "At the request of a UK based NGO, researching and producing a paper on the feasibility of implementing a transactions tax, with the amounts raised being applied to bridge the funding gap for meeting the UN's Millennium Development Goals." If this NGO was one that previously has had a strong stance on global trade, development aid and taxation, it may mean that the research was done to order. The article should reflect whether the conclusionos of Intelligence Capital were in accordance with the preferred view of those who paid for the research. This is the convention for other Wikipedia articles, which may mention e.g. if a particular piece of research about the environment was paid for by the oil industry.90.220.248.114 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read this Wikipedia policy about on the reliability of sources, or see the pertinent paragraphs in the discussion which is just above this one. "Peer reviewed" publications are the best, but others are not excluded by that policy. Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That is well and nice, but unrelated to what I asked for - if the research has been paid for by an NGO with a strong stance in relation to a Tobin tax, the source of that research money should be mentioned, as it is everywhere else on Wikipedia when research about controversial topics is industry-funded. Maybe someone could contact Intelligence Capital and ask about which NGO paid for that research? 90.220.248.114 (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found that it was indeed Stamp Out Poverty, an organisation with a strong interest in the outcome of the research. I have added the information that they funded the research to the article, which I believe an average reader would find relevant and notable. After all, there's entire articles, such as Passive Smoking, about links between an industry founder and a research outcome. 90.220.248.114 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wikipedia policy, all citations should always include the publisher. (I tried to follow that policy meticulously, and have already included the name "Stamp Out Poverty" several months ago.) It would be redundant to again include it in the body of the article. Wikipedia does have a policy discouraging redundancy: See Wikipedia:Avoid_redundancy - Boyd Reimer (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page edits

To all editors:

Do not edit your own posts after someone else has replied to them (with the possible exception of very minor edits). By doing so, you risk causing the subsequent comments of other editors to be misrepresented. A recent incident of this has occurred which I must bring to the attention of readers of this page. Please see Unreliable source: Linda_McQuaig above for the original discussion.

On February 20 2010, Boyd Reimer posted the following comments:

---

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

Quote:

"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)"

UnQuote

I thanked "The Four Deuces" for the help. I appreciate the insight. Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

---

My response 18 minutes later was the following:

---

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)

---

Boyd Reimer then proceeded to edit his previous post 10 minutes after my response so it reads as follows:

---

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)

---

As can be seen, this edit now creates the impression that my previous comment agreeing with The Four Deuces' advice as stated is also an agreement with Boyd Reimer's interpretation of that advice. I do not wish to get into a discussion on whether or not I consider this editor's interpretation a valid one as this is a side issue. The main issue is that altering an edit to create a misrepresentation of previous comments is a serious offense and unacceptable behavior. Please see WP:REDACT and WP:TALKNO. In particular,

• Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context.

• It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it. Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

• • Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.

I later posted a followup comment to a further post by Boyd Reimer but I had not realized then that he had edited his comments in this fashion, or I would have responded immediately as I have now.

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

Greetings Cosmic Cube: Thank you for this extra note of clarification. In this particular discussion of edits which are so close together in time, you are completely correct: I should have pressed "show preview" before I pressed "save page." I stand corrected and apologize for any harm this error of mine may have cause. (Footnote for readers: If I had pressed "show preview" then I would have seen that Cosmic Cube and I were virtually simultaneously editing the same conversation, ending up in a confusion of sequence, and hence inadvertently altered the intended meaning of Cosmic Cube's comment.) - Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit requiring a longer discussion

Greetings WWWords

In your Edit Summary of this edit you made reference to certain Wikipedia polices. This requires a longer discussion than can fit in a small Edit Summary.

Here is your edit summary:

"Please stop pasting text from 'www.newint.org' website; 12 quotes from their one "Time for Tobin!" article are enough. WP:V#SELF ; WP:SOAPBOX"

Point one:

A quick check of the reference will show that I did not add any more quotes from "Time for Tobin!" My contribution was from the article "Heavy surf & tsunamis." It was written in a different year and by a different author.

The only similarity that this article has with the article "Time for Tobin!" is the publisher.

Is there any Wikipedia policy which limits the number of articles from a certain publisher? For example, should we limit the number of articles from "The Financial Times?" If there is such a policy, please let me know and I will be glad to follow it.

Point two:

Also, I am unable to see how your reference to WP:V#SELF applies in this situation: Professor Ellen Frank did not "self-publish" her own article. It was published by New Internationalist magazine.

Point three:

There are not "12 quotes from their one "Time for Tobin!" article." I counted only four.

On the other hand I counted seven quotes from this source:

Schulmeister, Stephan, Margit Schratzenstaller, and Oliver Picek, 2008. A General Financial Transaction Tax. Motives, Revenues, Feasibility and Effects. Research Study by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research, co-financed by Federal Ministry of Finance and Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour, URL: http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/servlet/wwa.upload.DownloadServlet/bdoc/S_2008_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTION_TAX_31819$.PDF

Frankly, I don't mind there being seven quotes from that single source --as long as the article is balanced.

Point four:

Your reference to WP:SOAPBOX is questionable: The WP:SOAPBOX guideline would probably apply if there were not a balance of articles from all sides in the "Evaluation" sections. But the fact is that there is a balance: There are well over 136 references in this article. I have difficulty in seeing how four (or even seven) out of 136 is a "soapbox." The "balance" aspect of WP:SOAPBOX is in its reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in this quote:

"Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Mr. Reimer,

RE WP:SOAPBOX policy:

"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."

The "Time for Tobin!" article is biased: Is the title "Time for Tobin!" not a form of advocacy? Neutral point of view perhaps? It can be removed simply on the basis of its title alone.

Besides the source of both those newint.org articles is biased:

- N.I. has not published any anti-FTT tax articles (correct me if I'm wrong - I'd love to cite them for you), and

- The source does not espouse "neutral point of view", on the contrary, "New Internationalist is renowned for its radical, campaigning stance on a range of world issues".

RE other self-published soapbox material:

I have enough objectivity to admit that Schulmeisted (2008) it is indeed self-published, as most of the pro-Tobin tax material. The problem is that apart from Schulmeister (2008), I could not find anything of adequate quality that would support this tax ... (except of course for Liu and Zhu 2009, whom I duly quoted, even though they themself admit to contradict earlier research findings). So I propose that before removing Schulmeister (2008), which does contain semi-scientific evidence (albeit union-sponsored and self-published), we first try to remove material quoted from websites which are definitely "soapboxes", because their stated goals include putting the Tobin tax and similar international financial reforms on the G7 agenda. This applies first of all to the Halifax Initiative ("pro-Tobin tax NGO" cannot be really saying anything than propaganda) and all Stamp Out Poverty material (even if written by a PhD). These should be removed first, before we remove that Austrian paper, don't you think?

The Tobin tax Wikipedia article would definitely shrink below 100kB, and you will be able to stop calling it "too long", and using this legal catch to shift inconvenient anti-tax evidence to less accessible, obscure places. Like you did to that Malkiel and Sauter WSJ "regular investors you and me" article (which I myself could not find!) and Aldridge "non-financial job losses" article, and or indeed my earlier Ziemba and Ziemba (2007) evidence on Keynes running a speculative Chest Fund, which is now gone completely, erased, vandalized, even though it contained more references to peer-reviewed papers than the entire pro-Tobin tax evidence available)

What gives you this licence to delete referenced material or delete it "by proxy", i.e. copy to a minor, obscure article, where no-one would find it (including the original editor - hence my accusations of vandalism). Have you moved a single paragraph of "your" pro-tax evidence in that way? No. This clearly shows why you do it - to obscure anti-tax evidence.

Let me also remind you, that it was you who first hit the "delete" button on the Keynes' hedge fund hypocrisy. Then you continued this edit war violating the "Abundance and redundancy" Wikipedia policy, which states that:

"In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article". Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content."

Try to head the above sound advice, and your New Internationalist, Halifax Initiative, Stamp Out Poverty and indeed Schulmeister (which I found for you) will be safe with me. We don't need any more Cuban Missle Crises, do we?:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWWords (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords,

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Two heads are always better than one.

We agree on Inclusionism

I agree with the statement, "Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content."

This agreement between you and I makes both you and I "inclusionists" in Wikipedia terminology. See Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia.

Inclusionism brings with it the responsibility to be careful not to make articles so long that some web browsers have problems opening them click here to see the relevant Wikipedia policy.

Because of that technical problem, inclusionism brings with it the responsibility to do the following tasks when an article becomes too long:

• Start new articles to absorb the added volume of content.

• Be careful to place content in appropriate articles instead of loading all onto one article.

I have tried to do both of those above tasks: I started Financial transaction tax, Currency transaction tax, Spahn tax, DeFazio financial transaction tax.

It is a lot of extra work to start a new article. Hopefully you appreciate that.

I have tried to use caution to avoid deleting content

You mentioned that you are wondering what happened to your content on Keynes as a speculator. See this edit which shows that an editor added it to the "Personal Life section on the article on Keynes, which is where it truly belongs. And just so readers of the Tobin tax article can still access that information on Keynes as a speculator, there is still a link in the Tobin tax article which links to the personal life section of Keynes: See that link in this section. However the actual content on Keynes speculative activity was removed from the Keynes article. But it was not me who removed it. On that topic, your discussion should be with the editor who removed it, not with me.

Your content on Malkiel/Sauter, and your content on Aldridge "non-financial job losses" are both here in the article on the DeFazio financial transaction tax. When I moved them there I put in my Edit Summary a link to that article and referred the reader to this discussion which contains the rationale for what I did. Click here to see my Edit Summary That discussion also provides all editors with the opportunity to challenge my rationale.

Of course, my rationale is based on the Wikipedia policy on article size. click here to see the relevant Wikipedia policy

In an attempt to follow the Wikipedia policy on article size, I have tried to locate content in places which are most appropriate. In many cases when I moved content, I left in its place a link to where that content went. For example, the link to the article on DeFazio financial transaction tax, which contains your content on Malkiel/Sauter, and your content on Aldridge "non-financial job losses," is found in these three places in the Tobin tax article, (just under the section headings): here, here, and here.

In retrospect I should forewarned you more clearly that I was going to move content. I could have used all of the useful templates found in this Wikipedia policy article: Wikipedia:Splitting. These templates even tell the reader where the content is moved to, etc. But I just learned of these useful templates now. I apologize. In the future I will use them.

I also apologize if I may have accidentally inadvertently violated this Wikipedia policy on attribution: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia I just learned of this policy just now. In hindsight, I apologize.

About the Soapbox policy

This Wikipedia policy states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

Wikipedia policy does allow us to record what authors have said on an issue, even if the author "advocates" one position or another. But what Wikipedia does not allow is for us ourselves to advocate for something. There is a difference between recording the advocacy of others, and doing one's own advocacy.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a need to subdivide the Tobin tax article?

Greetings all editors of this article:

The Tobin tax article is too long now, and will probably become even longer very soon

According to this Wikipedia policy, the Tobin tax article is already too long.

There is documented reason to believe that it will get even longer as the issue of the Tobin tax is discussed in society in the immediate future: Consider this Feb 9, 2010 news report: "This June, leaders of G20 countries will meet ... A financial transaction tax is expected to be on the agenda." source

(Notice how the quote refers to a "financial transaction tax." There is already this article on Financial transaction taxes. That article still has a lot of room in it for expansion. But due to the fact that many parts of society are using the terms "Tobin tax" and "financial transaction tax" interchangeably, we are bound by what all parts of society do.)

In the immediate future, as more and more events occur which are related to what many in society call "the Tobin tax," there will inevitably be more and more content for the "Evaluation" sections of the Tobin tax article.

The necessity of "Spin off" article(s)

If we make a spin-off article then how should we go about it?

I am asking other editors for ideas on that question.

"Spin off" articles are sometimes called "forks" or "splitting." See these policies: Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

Should the "Evaluation" section be a separate article?

Some articles about books have a subcategorized "spin off" article on "Reception of the book." This would be a separate article from the article on the book itself. (See these examples). In those examples, as I see it, the "Reception" article could have remained just a small section in the main article about the book if it hadn't become too long to exist as section.

In the case of the Tobin tax article, one proposal is to take the "Evaluation" sections and the "Opposers and Supporters" sections and make them into a separate article. --separate from the "Tobin tax" article, which would retain only the core definition of the Tobin tax.

Of course, both the negative comments and the positive comments would reside in the same article. Example: Creation–evolution controversy, where both/all sides are represented. The variations on the Tobin tax, such as the Spahn tax, make our situation more complex than a simple dualism of "criticism" and "support." That is why I would prefer the example of Creation–evolution controversy instead of the example of Criticism of Christianity.

See this essay on Wikipedia protocol: Wikipedia:Criticism, in particular this section: Wikipedia:Criticism#Locating_evaluations

Perhaps we should develop a timeline of relevant events and include that also. (See Wikipedia:Timeline)

The above is only one proposed way to divide the article. There are other ways also. I am interested to hear your comments.

The importance of consensus

According to Wikipedia:Content_forking "POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."

Splitting an article must be done with consensus among all editors who are active on this page. See this policy: Wikipedia:Consensus

With a controversial article such as "Tobin tax," there are special considerations. For example:

Wikipedia:Content forking has this quote: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view has the following quote (found here)

"A point of view fork is a deliberate attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already being treated, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts..... The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on the same subject are treated in one article."

"It is vital to note that this does not rule out separate articles on related but distinct subjects if there is enough information about each subject to justify a separate article. For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all separate. This is fine because these articles deal with merely related but not identical subjects, each of which has been determined to be independently notable. Spin-offs are another case of related but distinct articles: they are not only justified but are a central part of Wikipedia's structure. When distinctions between topics are sufficiently large and each topic notable enough to justify separate articles must be decided case by case."

Also see: Wikipedia:Controversial articles

I look forward to hearing from other editors on this issue.

Logistics

One of us could set up a trial page in a sandbox (see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox) which all of us could comment on -- before it goes live. Is there interest in that?

After we come to a consensus on how to split up the article then we should use the templates found in Wikipedia:Splitting which notify the readers (in advance of moving content) where the content will be moved to etc. There are also templates which give that information after the fact also.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe a better approach would be to clean up the existing article rather than splitting it. This can be accomplished through tighter editing of the material already present. A good start would be a moratorium on nonessential new content in order to speed up the editorial process.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube,

Thank you for your comments. On the face of things I see your point.

In theory your idea sounds good, but in practice it may encounter problems.

In other words: Personally, as I see it, you are speaking about an ideal. But Wikipedia, being open to all editors, will inevitably be open to editors who have inclusionist tendencies (ie. editors who err on the side of including content instead tending to leaving it out.) See the important discussion on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia.

After reading that discussion, you will see that inclusionism will not go away just because we want to meet an ideal --regardless of how honorable that ideal may be. Inclusionism cannot be wished away. It is well established in Wikipedia -- among many administrators also, and the "notable inclusionists" found by clicking here. The list includes Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger.

Evidence that we have an active inclusionist in this Tobin tax article is found in this discussion when WWWords makes this quote:

"...once more I ask you to respect the "Abundance and redundancy" policy."

As you can see, WWWords is a very strong inclusionist. The first two words of his quote show that he has emphasized this issue more than once.

I myself also have some degree of inclusionist tendencies (to the point that I do call myself an inclusionist), but I consider it an even higher priority to respect the following quote from this Wikipedia policy has this quote: "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided"

I want to do everything in my power to follow all Wikipedia policy, including the above Wikipedia policy on size.

As the press reports continue to be produced about society's "Tobin tax discussions," it will be increasingly difficult to accommodate both the inclusionists and the Wikipedia policy on article length. As the G20 summit approaches, more press reports will be produced. It will then be increasingly difficult for us to accommodate both.

In fact, we already failing to accommodate both. (An example of that failure is in this discussion from yesterday.) The Tobin tax article has been over the Wikipedia policy maximum of 100 KB since January 15, 2010.

The need to subdivide has already been there for a month and a half. (Attempts to reduce size by reformatting footnotes won't make the necessary difference. I have tried.) As the G20 summit approaches, the need to subdivide will grow even more.

Rather than have articles too large, Wikipedia policy is to subdivide them. See the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Article size, and the expandibility of Wikipedia. Here are some more examples of subdivisions (besides the ones I have already linked to in my above comments):

• Country music and Reception of country music
• J. R. R. Tolkien and Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien
• War and Peace and List of War and Peace characters

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important not to get carried away at this time with implementing an arbitrary policy. See points #2-3 of WP:WL:

2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;

3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

The important underlying principles of the size guideline are readability and technical issues (WP:SIZE). The article is not yet large enough for the technical issues to be a problem. The most important issue is, thus, readability. This problem can be solved through tighter editing, as I noted above.

This is not an issue of inclusionism vs. deletionism as the discussion you cited deals with whether to keep or delete entire articles, not with portions of content in a single article. It is not necessary to delete content outright, however; it is only necessary to summarize the content in a concise way as occurs in any good encyclopedia.

As for the issue of this all being an ideal which might not work due to the open editing policy of Wikipedia, this is not really a problem. It turns out that only four editors (2% of the total number of editors) account for 70% of the edits to this article (with you holding the top position at 47% of the edits).

Cosmic Cube (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Both approaches could work but i tend to favour a split for the reasons outlined by editor Boyd Reimer. While there's less popular interest, the comparison with Christianity is well chosen as advocates on both sides of the issue can be very passionate and in such cases it can work well to have a separate controversy article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

Thank you for your comments.

About technical questions

You mentioned that "The article is not yet large enough for the technical issues to be a problem." Yet this Wikipedia guideline states the following:

"Even so, the total article size should be kept reasonably low, because there are many users that edit from low-speed connections. Connections to consider include dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 KB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are not recommended. Mobile browsers can be a problem because these devices usually have little memory and a slow CPU; long pages can take too much time to process, if they can be fully loaded at all. Current mobile browsers and some older PC web browsers cannot correctly edit long pages because they crop the source text to 32 KB. When using slow connections, e.g., a desktop computer with an analog modem dial-up or the wireless connection of some mobile devices, long articles can take too much time to load."

The above technical evidence demonstrates that there are issues of "equal accessibility" here. This Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Accessibility emphasizes that it is important for Wikipedia to stay accessible to all

The importance of consensus

According to the below rationale, consensus governs in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Article size is a Wikipedia guideline. This Wikipedia guideline contains this quote: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus."

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is a Wikipedia essay. Wikipedia essays all begin with this quote: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion."

From the above information, it appears that "guidelines" (done with consensus) govern over essays

Wikipedia:Consensus is a Wikipedia policy which is part of the Wikipedia:Five pillars called Wikipedia:Civility. This procedural policy contains this quote: "Policies describe standards that (within the limits of common sense) all users should normally follow, and guidelines are meant to contain best practices for doing so."

Therefore in the end, it is consensus which governs all of the above.

Those favoring an eventual article split include the following (as of today's date):

• myself
• User:FeydHuxtable
• This editor who put the tag on the article which recommends "Please consider splitting content into sub-articles" (See this edit on January 23)

Nevertheless, on such an important issue, I will not rush into this. If and when we do (by consensus) decide to split the article, it may put everyone at ease if one of us were to set up a sandbox outline (not the whole article, just the outline) for all to critique, before it goes live.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be opposed to any moves to subdivide the Tobin tax page. Tobin taxes have been discussed at great lengths for thirty plus years, and the historical context and past evaluations and experiences are central to the current debate. There is no reason to believe that Tobin taxes will discussed any more by society in future than they have been in the past, because the arguments for and against have not changed, and it has always been a hot topic and widely discussed since the days of Keynes, and especially Tobin.

In addition, creating a new spin off page will probably increase the amount of 'political editing', something that has increasingly become a problem on the page. In my opinion it would be preferable if future edits are NOT sneaked in 'through the back door', but are instead scrutinized carefully by all editors in order to uphold the overall quality of the page. The goal is best achieved via the current setup. I think the page is working quite well, there is good quality material put forward by all editors in a central location. Sure, different editors have very different viewpoints, but that makes for a more balanced page. Spinning pages off would likely lead to a situation where you reached very different conclusions based on which spin off page you happen to read.

However, I do think we can make a concerted effort to condense our own material if we feel necessary. I try to be as concise as possible with my edits. Perhaps we could each take a look at our own edits here...But I do not think it would set the right tone to start deleting others edits unless there is violation of Wikipedia rules etc. Benwm (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Boyd Reimer,

Please stop engaging in wikilawyering. You are applying the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law. Please reread #2-3 of WP:WL:

2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;

3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.

In making a distinction between a guideline and an essay, you are engaging in precisely the behavior that hampers a useful discussion. A useful discussion is something which I am interested in participating in. What I am not interested in is having to read a personal essay from you on the talk page every time an issue arises, one that consists of endless selective citation of policy for no good reason. This is precisely the essence of wikilawyering. Please stop this behavior.

Note that in citing the WP:ACCESS policy, you are referencing a policy aimed at helping those with disabilities (for example, by ensuring that color is not the only way that information is conveyed in order to help color-blind users), something which is not under discussion here and far, far removed from your proposal. More importantly, in choosing to cite a portion of the WP:SIZE policy, it is convenient that you failed to mention the text immediately before what you quoted:

In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a strict maximum of 32 KB in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems. With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size.

In other words, this policy is not so important anymore. That does not mean it should be ignored necessarily, but only that it need not be a pressing concern if there are other more important issues to deal with. Your attempts to make it into a pressing concern by making it seem like an urgent issue are not appreciated. The central problem with this article is that it is an unreadable mess that has become a dumping ground for random information. Splitting it does not solve that; it simply creates five (or however many) unreadable messes. Solving this problem should be the first priority and it is one that is readily solvable through disciplined editing.

Furthermore, please do not cite support for your proposal from an anonymous editor. Even if we accept the anonymous editor’s comment at face value, note that one of his (her?) edits was to tag the article as being essay-like---in other words, singling this article out for its lousy quality.

Beyond this, you cited support from an editor (FeydHuxtable) who has made only ONE edit on this page. Judging from the fact that this editor has awarded you with a Barnstar for your activity on this and a related article (January 5, 2010 on User_talk:Boyd_Reimer), it appears that this person happens to be a friend of yours that you solicited to participate in this discussion (February 27 on User_talk:FeydHuxtable). It is rather convenient that out of all the 120 editors who have made only a SINGLE edit here, you chose only the one who happens to be a friend. This is a form of meatpuppetry (WP:MEAT). Please stop this behavior.

Note the quote that you posted:

Policies describe standards that (within the limits of common sense) all users should normally follow, and guidelines are meant to contain best practices for doing so.

The key phrase here is common sense. Please consider this policy (WP:IAR):

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Attempting to split the article at this time does not improve its quality. It actually worsens it substantially by spreading things out and making them harder to edit. As I see it, you are attempting to apply the WP:SIZE policy for no reason other than to merely apply it.

I have tried, in good faith and in a civil manner, to raise reasonable issues to improve the article’s quality and I find it frustrating that each time you sidestep by resorting to endless and inappropriate policy citation rather than dealing directly with the points made. Please stop this behavior. This is not how to engage in a conversation with another human being.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings all involved,

I'm also opposed, not only to splitting (of any contentious section), but also to:

- expanding this discussion on splits after this "vote", because the Discussion page has already overtaken the length of the main article (twice), to the detriment of our main reason for working here. The reason being? The very thing Mr. Reimer objects to: editing, i.e. typing (not pasting!) of our own condensed, synthetic, paraphrased version of existing publication-quality material.

If the article increases in size as a result of proper editing, then all the better, we have added more value. If we failed to do so (i.e. copied material from websites verbatim), splitting would not solve the problem of verbosity. The disease would just spread its tentacles, and the sum of new parts would remain just as unwieldy as it was before the spin-off. We need more quality editing, Mr. Reimer, not more clicks to subpages and even more stub articles that no-one else wants to edit (except yourself).

Before we even consider splitting, we should first consider attacking the core problem, i.e. verbose edits, including for example:

- multiple quotes by the same author / political organization (I realize that this could bias the article severely, given that the pro-tax side seems to be comprised of a rather small circle of "one-hit-wonder authors", which have to be cited more than once),

- news reporting, which should probably be moved to Wikinews,

I appreciate all the hard work put in here by Mr. Reimer, but isn't his editing a bit verbose, consisting mostly of pasting quotes without trying to paraphrase them? That's the least efficient method of editing, the one which is most likely responsible for the "too big to load" "problem". What if all editors were to make proportional cuts in their own edits? Just like carbon emitters required to cut a percentage of their pollution. I bet Mr. Reimers' cuts would command the best compression ratio! And we already know that roughly 3/4 of the total article has been contributed by him. His motto should probably be "two quotes are better than one" and this attitude is largely responsible for quantity increases without any quality improvements. So everyone should be made responsible for their own verbosity, starting with the most prolific of all editors, Mr. Reimer himself (I'm sure he can recognize his own edits - I certainly can!) Surely synthetic writing requires more work than pasting and splitting, but if the article does become more interesting, readers' time will be more efficiently used, and boredom will less likely prevent them from reaching correct conclusions.

And if something had to be moved (I still don't understand why - the Tobin tax page loads nowhere near as slow as Vulnerable species), the natural sequence would be starting with the things which are least contentious, such as simple news reporting and history (without analysis), i.e. things stale, unchanging, and undisputable, available elsewhere. The "moving parts" on the other hand, subject to our constant arguments, such as research evidence and its evaluation (debate) should be retained where they are, because there is no consensus here and because such information is critical to forming our readers opinions, so the evidence should be immediately accessible, without extra searching or navigation.

By the way, it is rather ironic that Mr. Reimer should point out that illegitimacy of the "wikilawyering" argument (which is apparently not admissible in this court). If he studied law, he might appreciate the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law sligthly better... distracting resources away from the productive activities is not what law was originally intended for. It is what it degenerated into.

WWWords (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

Here is a quote from your recent comment: "Note that in citing the WP:ACCESS policy, you are referencing a policy aimed at helping those with disabilities (for example, by ensuring that color is not the only way that information is conveyed in order to help color-blind users), something which is not under discussion here and far, far removed from your proposal."

The key lead section of Wikipedia:Accessibility reads as follows: "Accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers. Articles adhering to the following guidelines are easier to read and edit by those Wikipedians with and without disabilities."

There are huge sectors of the population in rural areas who use dial-up and do not have a high speed connection.

If we assume that knowledge is power, then we are making that power less accessible to those people by creating pages which load more slowly.

This source states the following: "Akamai said in 2006 that you could lose up to 33% of your visitors if your page took more than 4 seconds to load on a broadband connection." Dial-up visitors are more patient, but the it's unlikely that even they will wait the 20 seconds required for our present 120 KB "Tobin tax" page to load with dial-up.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Benwm, you mentioned that "There is no reason to believe that Tobin taxes will discussed any more by society in future than they have been in the past." In 2009 there has been an unprecedented interest in the Tobin tax, and similar taxes. For evidence see the Tobin tax article section on Government supporters and opposers in 2009

As interest grows in the topic, even the older analysis will be scrutinized more closely, thus requiring a more detailed and therefore larger Wikipedia article.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WWWords, Talk pages are different from articles, because they can be archived as many times as necessary. See Help:Archiving a talk page. But it should be noted that archived threads are dormant. Probably for that reason there is one editor who wants this page kept at its present length. (I don't mind that: In terms of priority, it is more important that Main Articles be kept at an accessible size than Talk Pages be kept at an accessible size.) At some point in the future an editor may want to make use of the link to Help:Archiving a talk page, so I put it at the top of this page.

I am not sure why everyone is horrified at the prospect of refactoring the Tobin tax article. In Wikipedia, refactoring is "a natural part of growth for a topic" (click here for source of quote). In fact, it is one of the advantages that it has above paper encyclopedias. Refactoring and expandibility go hand in hand. In the digital age this is as common as breathing...for websites and for all other online material.

Expandability is great. It comes with only one small price: refactoring (ie subdividing)

This Wikipedia policy (not an "essay") has the following quote:

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. ... Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but we can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly. "

Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Boyd Reimer,

I could answer your “points” but I have decided not to in order to halt this unproductive cycle. It is clear you are not listening to anyone other than yourself. You have once again chosen to ignore any of the real issues raised by myself or the other posters, all of which are relevant to the quality of this article. Instead you come back for yet another round of wikilawyering (something which I asked you to stop doing) in order to try and justify whatever project it is you have set your mind to, whether it be championing bad sources or splitting this article, all of which you are doing for reasons that do not make any sense and which work AGAINST the quality of the article.

Rather than debating minutia, I would prefer to use my time in a productive manner by spending it doing actual editing. As WWWords has said, distracting resources away from productive activities is not what the law was meant for, a point I am sure Keynes would have richly appreciated.

That is all I have to say.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DeFazio financial transaction tax content

The Tobin tax article is already too long. See Wikipedia:Article size

DeFazio financial transaction tax has its own article.

Consider the content in the Tobin tax article which has the following two characteristics:

• The references that content uses do not mention "Tobin tax" either directly nor indirectly.

• The content is about the DeFazio financial transaction tax and not about the Tobin tax.

I propose that all content which has the above two characteristics should be

• summarized in a maximum of one sentence

• moved to the article on DeFazio financial transaction tax

Any thought from other editors?

There is at least one example of such content: Click here to see it Perhaps there are more examples.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

_____

Have you heard of the Ockham's razor Mr. Reimer? The term you try to create using wikipedia(s) does not exist, "DeFazio tax" it is almost a "googlewhack"! It is 10-times less famous that your inestimable person!

"tobin tax" 202000 v. "defazio tax" 318

"tobin tax" site:edu 1930 v. "defazio tax" site:edu 0

"boyd reimer" 1540

"defazio financial transaction tax" 185

"defazio financial transaction tax" -wikipedia.org -thepedia.com -answers.com 10

"defazio transaction tax" 7

"defazio financial transactions tax" 7

"defazio transactions tax" 0

So no original research please, stick to what already exists (i.e. the Tobin tax).

"summarized in a maximum of one sentence" Why should it apply to anti-Tobin tax evidence only? I propose that we both start with our own copious copy-paste "edits". I once estimated that 10% of the Tobin tax article is taken up by long verbatim quotes from the Halifax Initiative website (whose stated goal is putting Tobin tax on the G7 agenda, as in WP:SOAPBOX). I propose you start summarizing these verbatim soapbox quotes first, before you start summarizing summaries (of neutral verifiable sources).

"Not about Tobin" - once more I ask you to respect the "Abundance and redundancy" policy. No need to start edit wars again (removing peer-reviewed evidence on Keynes running speculative Chest Fund was first such hostile attempt).

"Too long" - There are 2MB pages on Wikipedia (such as Vulnerable species) without any "too long" tags. Please stop wikilawyering.

WWWords (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings WWWords,

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Two heads are always better than one.

Thank you for pointing out the correction to the name "DeFazio financial transaction tax." According to this source "This Act may be cited as the ‘Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009’." So in accordance with those official directions, I changed the name to Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Bill. The reason the word "Bill" is used instead of "Act" is because it has not yet been passed. (Thanks to another Wikipedia editor who pointed that out in this edit That senior editor, User:Ironholds, approved of the final version of the name.) To help people who are searching the internet, I created a Wikipedia Redirect from DeFazio financial transaction tax to Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Bill.

Also, after hearing that you do not approve of moving the DeFazio content out of the Tobin tax article, I consider this discussion over and I removed the tags.

Discussions of article size cannot be disregarded without some very real physical consequences: This Wikipedia policy has this quote: "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided"

In accordance with that policy, I have now put a tag on the "Vulnerable species" article. Incidentally, I had a lot of trouble getting it to open -- just like the policy indicated I would. This is simply a physical reality.

If no one followed Wikipedia policies, then I suspect it would be disorganized to the point of complete failure.

Regarding your other comments, I propose that in order to keep things organized, we keep the two discussions separate under their respective headings. Therefore I will refer you to this separate discussion: Talk:Tobin_tax#Edit_requiring_a_longer_discussion.

Again, thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

Peace

Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)