Talk:Tobin tax/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Clarification request

Below is a portion of text from the article:

Empirical evidence on the observed effects of the already introduced and abolished stock transaction taxes and a hypothetical Currency Transaction Tax (CTT) (Tobin) can be probably treated interchangeably, at least according to researchers like Aliber et al. (2003) who did not find any evidence on the differential effects of introducing or removing, stock transactions taxes or a hypothetical currency (Tobin) tax on any subset of markets or all markets.

This is somewhat unclear to the reader. How is it that empirical evidence is obtained on a hypothetical tax? Is this a reference to an experimental study, or is there a problem with this text?

I am not sure who placed this material here. If that editor reads this, then a clarification of this material would be most appreciated. Failing that, I will read the original reference myself and make the appropriate corrections (but I would be grateful if someone who knows the answer would save me the time).

Cosmic Cube (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Best practice: Cross-editing

I wanted to highlight what I feel would be a best practice for this article: cross-editing. This was suggested above by Benwm as being something that could help the article’s quality. This tighter sort of collaborative editing could be something that would vastly improve the article’s clarity, structure, and brevity.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing notes (3)

I moved material on Tobin tax effects on volatility to a spot earlier in the article. This was Tobin’s primary motivation so it should be one of the first issues discussed. Some clean up may be required to accommodate this change.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Ellen Frank a questionable source?

Greetings Benwm

At issue is this edit in which your Edit Summary stated the following: "Deleted, See this link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources"

That Wikipedia content guideline cautions against sources which are "promotional in nature" but the article quoted does not promote the sale of any goods nor services.

That Wikipedia content guideline cautions against "extremist" sources, but here is evidence that Frank is not extremist: At the time Ellen Frank wrote the article in question, (2000), she had a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Massachusetts and taught at Emmanuel College (Massachusetts) in Boston, US, and was a contributing editor to Dollars and Sense. Her distinguished record since then is recorded at this link

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 Ellen Frank in the "Tobin tax" article. I suggest that this action should be taken before any further deletions occur.

I would also like to point out that Wikipedia policy suggests that discussion occur before major deletion, not after a deletion. See this link: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss which contains this quote:

"Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. ...

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this helpful discussion from the broader community of Wikipedia editors at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard at this link:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Ellen_Frank_as_a_source_in_the_Tobin_tax_article

Also see this discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Halifax_Initiative_in_the_Tobin_tax_article which contains the following quote from User:Martinlc: "I think the rule about promotion is intended to govern organisations seeking to increase their sales or membership, rather than seeking to influence policy."

Peace, Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just now I updated the link to the now archived discussion - Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the Halifax Initiative a questionable source?

Greetings Benwm

At issue is this edit in which your Edit Summary stated the following: "Deleted, See this link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources"

That Wikipedia content guideline cautions against sources which are "promotional in nature" but the article quoted does not promote the sale of any goods nor services.

That Wikipedia content guideline cautions against "extremist" sources, but here is evidence that Robin Round (representative of the Halifax Initiative) is not extremist: This link describes the Halifax Initiative. At the time of the publication of the reference in question, this group of organizations had been together for 6 years. The group membership (at this link) includes 17 organizations. One of those organizations is the Canadian Labour Congress which has 3 million members.

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 Robin Round / Halifax Initiative in the "Tobin tax" article. I suggest that this action should be taken before any further deletions occur.

I would also like to point out that Wikipedia policy suggests that discussion occur before major deletion, not after a deletion. See this link: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss which contains this quote:

"Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. ...

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Robin Round heads up the Tobin Tax Campaign of the Halifax Organization"

Source: http://www.newint.org/issue320/tobin.htm

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.

I agree with the other editors that is is better to concentrate on editing than discuss this matter further with you when it is clear that you are not listening to anyone else. I will let yourself and other editors decide whether you have violated Wikipedia's questionable sources policy.

That is all I will say on the matter, it is the end of my input. Benwm (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Benwm

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears as if you have not read your "new messages" in your "my talk" page. At 15:08, March 16, 2010 I put this edit into your talk page. It contains the below quote at this link:

Quote:

"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.

Please familiarize yourself with the above Wikipedia policy before making hasty deletions in the Tobin tax article. Thank you."

(Endquote)

Again, please read this Wikipedia policy carefully. Thank you.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To assist in your research as to whether the Halifax Initiative is an "extremist" organization, I am providing you with a list of its members. (The blue links lead to their Wikipedia pages):

1. Development and Peace (Canada)
2. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
3. Canadian Council for International Co-operation
4. Canadian Friends of Burma
5. Canadian Labour Congress
6. CAW
7. Falls Brook Centre
8. Kairos
9. MiningWatch Canada
10. The North-South Institute
11. Oxfam Canada
12. Oxfam Québec
13. RESULTS Canada
14. Rights & Democracy
15. Social Justice Committee
16. Steelworkers
17. World Inter-Action Mond

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Boyd

With respect, you are once again wrong to assume that I did not read my your message from you, there is no confusion on my part. When did I claim that Halifax Initiative is an "extremist" organization? You are putting words into my mouth, aren't you?

But your source falls under the heading "websites and publications expressing views that are...promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on...personal opinions". According to Wikipedia guidelines, it is a questionable source, at the very least.

In case you missed it:-

"Robin Round heads up the Tobin Tax Campaign of the Halifax Organization"

Source: http://www.newint.org/issue320/tobin.htm

The evidence is clear to me, but I will let yourself and other editors decide whether you have violated Wikipedia's questionable sources policy. As others have pointed out, it is clear that you are not listening to anyone else.

Please do not send me any more 'private' messages. Thank you.

Now that REALLY IS all I will say on the matter.

Benwm (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "promotion," it may be helpful to point out to the readers of the Tobin tax article that Irene Aldridge has a conflict of interest when she evaluates the Tobin tax. She herself is "Managing Partner at ABLE Alpha Trading" and would be directly affected by such a tax. (see source) You may have a difficult time convincing WWWords to part with that source.

Any policy applied to Robin Round should also be applied to Irene Aldridge and all the other quotes in the article that come from traders. If we eliminate all the traders comments from this article then we may find that we will have a much, much smaller article.

Whatever policy you apply, should be applied consistently in order to be done fairly.

In good faith, I have included the comments from Halifax Initiative because its members represent a total of literally millions of people in society, and because our job as editors of an encyclopedia is to document what happens in society. If those millions of people are left out of an encyclopedia article, then something is very distorted.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this helpful discussion from the broader community of Wikipedia editors at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard at this link:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Halifax_Initiative_in_the_Tobin_tax_article.

Also see the related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Ellen_Frank_as_a_source_in_the_Tobin_tax_article in which there is the following quote from User:Blueboar about the permissibility of recording opinions of sources: "As for it being used in support of an attributed statement of the author's opinion... it clearly is reliable..."

Notice that Blueboar points to a caution in properly attributing statements to certain individuals. (It is important to avoid attributing the wrong statement to the wrong individual --claiming that they said something that they did not say.) The issue is "proper attribution." The issue is not "the permissibility of recording the opinions of individuals."

Peace, Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just now I updated one of the above links to a now archived discussion - Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just now I updated another of the above links to the now archived discussion. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Very partial article

The page already has a notice that it reads like a personal reflection or essay, but it is also a very partial essay. To illustrate this, here are excerpts from the paragraph entitled Tobin tax proponents response to empirical evidence on volatility. One would expect this paragraph to reflect the views of the Tobin tax proponents. Instead, it reads like an essay on how to deconstruct the arguments of Tobin tax proponents:

There is yet another reason why some proponents of the Tobin tax maintain that it can reduce volatility, despite prevailing empirical evidence to the contrary.

Evidence about this special type of volatility is missing and this is why some of the proponents, instead of conducting their own tests, prefer to blame financial econometric researchers for not addressing their special needs

At least, the tone of the article is not misleading: the way it's written, the article bias is obvious.

J. K. 14:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish between past events and future predictions

Presently, there are some criticisms of the Tobin tax which use words like "effects," and "empirical studies," but use them ambiguously... not clearly distinguishing between past events and future predictions.

"Effects"

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.

"Empirical"

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 ( See this discussion ) about the argument from ignorance. But so far, I haven't seen that distinguishing terminology, even though I raised this topic Feb 9, 2010 in the archived discussion entitled, "The difference between hypothetical effects and effects that have already been experienced"

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions that portions of this article be moved

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 Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Bill.

Supporting my proposal is this Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Attribution tag:

Notice that the moved content is kept intact (almost verbatim) in its new location here (July 9, 2010): Let_Wall_Street_Pay_for_the_Restoration_of_Main_Street_Bill#Criticism_from_Malkiel_and_Sauter and here: Let_Wall_Street_Pay_for_the_Restoration_of_Main_Street_Bill#Another_bill_introduced_by_DeFazio

Sincerely - Boyd Reimer (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Category of "Taxation"

Greetings Jatkins

I will assume good faith when you did this edit and removed the category of "taxation" from the Tobin tax article. I assume good faith because you may have thought that "Tobin tax" belongs only in the category of "international taxation," and not "individual nation taxation" (ie. domestic taxation) However, I am restoring the category of "taxation" to "Tobin tax" because there are sourced references which claim that it is possible for a Tobin tax to be unilaterally applied to, and/or from, a single nation. See this section: Tobin_tax#How_many_nations_are_needed_to_make_it_feasible.3F

Also the concept of a "Tobin tax" is a flexible concept and can be applied in a flexible adaptive manner. The Tobin tax article includes the Tobin tax concept in addition to the applications of the concept. The category "taxation" itself is broad enough so that it does not exclude this concept.

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Splitting

I have thought some more about the issue of splitting this article since it was last discussed. I was thinking that one way we might attempt a split would be along the lines of two articles: economic and political. Perhaps better terms for this would be "theory" and "implementation". By splitting it in this manner we would have one article about theory that would remain fairly stable in size together with one article about implementation that would be more fluid since it depends much more on current events. That should help with the issue of this article continuing to grow.

I welcome feedback from other editors about this idea. Cosmic Cube (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

I appreciate your renewed concern about the length of this article.

For the benefit of those who are new to this page: The first part of that discussion on "splitting" is now archived and can be accessed by clicking here. The next tiny part of the discussion is accessed by clicking here.

First, I would like to know the details of your proposal. For example, please list the sections (or a brief example of sections) of the article which are proposed to be moved to each of the new articles you mentioned.

Second, I think that the pair of terms "Economic and Political" are very different from the pair of terms, "Proposed and Implemented" (I can't imagine how there could be a separation between the intertwined realms of "Economic and Political." But I can imagine how there could be a separation between "Proposed and Implemented.")

Third, I need time to digest your proposal, but to begin with, here are few points to consider. The existing section entitled "Tobin tax proposals and implementations around the world" would have to be split into "proposals" and "implementations." Also, speaking of implementations, there are already separate articles about quasi-implemenations of the Tobin tax. They include the section called Stamp Duty Reserve Tax in the article Stamp duty in the United Kingdom.

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the terms "economic" and "political" are too cryptic to explain what I meant. Let's call the sections "economic theory" and "political implementation" for now. In the economic theory section, we put all the material relating to fundamental concepts and research. In the political implementation section, we put the material relating to what has been done to put the ideas into practice. Note that the implementation section should include the material on unimplemented proposals since a proposal is obviously the first stage of an implementation.

In terms of sections, I would propose that the main dividing line begin at "Original idea and alter-globalization movement". Everything before that point would go into the theory section and everything after would go into the implementation section. There might be some murky areas in some of the subsections but we can sort that out on a case-by-case basis. Cosmic Cube (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand the whole picture of what you are proposing. Details are needed: In particular...

1. What do you mean by " ..."Original idea and alter-globalization movement". Everything before that point..."?

2. Please list the sections (or a brief example of sections) of the article which are proposed to be moved to each of the new articles you mentioned.

3. After I, and other editors fully understand what you are proposing, then whoever does the article splitting should be aware that there is a certain procedure which must be followed. For example, advance notice must be posted at the top of the article about the exact intentions. Also Wikipedia has guidelines concerning attribution (which are also very important) For assistance from Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Splitting.

4. But even before any of these guidelines are followed, there needs to be a consensus among editors as to the manner in which the article will be split. In order to reach that consensus, all of us editors must first understand exactly what your proposal is. At this point, most of it is unclear to me (ie "murky") Please expand your explanation. Thank you.

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Original idea and alter-globalization movement" is the title of the subsection in the Tobin tax article that I propose as the dividing line. The subsections before that would go into the theory article and the subsections beginning there until the end of the article would go into the implementation article. Cosmic Cube (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Two heads are always better than one. However I immediately see a difficulty with your proposal:

It is common knowledge that a significant percentage of people who search the internet want information fast, and they won't go any farther than they have to ... in order to get a summary of the topic they are searching for. (See Cyberpsychology, and Search engine optimization). If the sections on "proposed ideas" and the criticism in the "evaluation" sections are the first page, and if the reader goes no further, then their first impression of the "Tobin tax" will be more negative than if they immediately encountered successful implementations of related forms of the Tobin tax.

That is why the effect of your proposal, if implemented, would probably not be balanced.

Wikipedia is all about balance: See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I am not saying that I think you had any intention of being "not neutral" by suggesting this proposal. But given what researchers know about surfing behaviour, the end effect would end up being not neutral. Therefore, I am sorry to say that your proposal doesn't appear to be able to pass the test of neutrality.

In the interests of objectivity, we could probably do the following things:

• Look at precedents and examples of splitting articles on larger topics,...for example, such as the article on "tax."

• ask for an outside opinion from a disinterested (unbias) editor, or several of them.

• etc,

Sincerely - Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a miscommunication here. The criticism portions would not be at the beginning of either article. They would come at the end of the first article. The beginning of the second article would be implementations (which includes proposals). I mentioned above where that dividing line would be. Of course, we could write a preamble before that point as an introduction to the second article, if necessary. Therefore, if a person simply wanted to skim the beginning of either article, they would not receive an unbalanced point of view.

I think the split I outlined is a pretty natural split: theory and practice. That's a natural way to divide any subject. I don't quite understand what sections you are pointing to that give you the impression that this would somehow end up unbalanced. If you could specifically point out the sections that concern you, I think we can clear this up easily. And, as I said above, we can decide what to do with any "murky" subsection on a case-by-case basis, so this approach should be workable. Cosmic Cube (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Cosmic Cube:

I apologize for the delay in my response. It was due to events beyond my control.

I am beginning to like your idea. I approve of it. (with the recognition that I am only one editor)

The logistics of how to go about this:

1. Tag article:

First, we need to tag the article so that any visitors would be alerted to the splitting work going on behind the scenes. (I can do that.) About the tag: please note that the word, "multiple" could mean just “two.”

2. Probably collectively work on rough draft before "going live"

You mentioned "murky areas".....Therefore, I have included the below quote:

In the lead section of this Wikipedia page on article creation you'll find the following quote (bold emphasis is mine):

"Consider creating the article first in your user space. As a registered user, you have your own user space. You can start the new article there, on a subpage; you can get it in shape, take your time, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go. To create your own subpage, see here. When the new article is ready for "prime time", you can move it into the main area. (Note: the Article Wizard has an option to create these kind of draft pages.)"

Tutorial on sub page creation: see Wikipedia:UP#SUB

Here's what I like about your idea:

Presently, there are some criticisms of the Tobin tax which use words like "effects," and "empirical studies," but use them ambiguously... not clearly distinguishing between past events and future predictions.

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.

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 Feb 9, 2010 in the archived discussion entitled, "The difference between hypothetical effects and effects that have already been experienced"

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Important: I found a very helpful Wikipedia essay on "How have other articles handled large 'evaluation' sections." It is found at this link: Wikipedia:Criticism, and contains this quote:

Begin quote

This guideline, Wikipedia:Criticism/Wikipedia:Reception, gives recommendations on how to format and locate evaluations, which, if justified, may be:

• In separate sections in articles about the evaluated topic,
• Integrated throughout an article,
• In other articles than the article about the topic,

as long as this complies with Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:SUMMARY, and WP:POV FORK, further detailed below.

(end quote)

That helpful essay comes complete with examples at this link: Wikipedia:Criticism#Examples

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the long delay. I have had some things come up that require my attention and I don’t have very much time right now. The proposal on splitting this article is worth doing but requires substantial work as can be seen from the links you posted above. I’ll come back to it when I am able. Regards, Cosmic Cube (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Add a direct and simple layout below of what needs to be done, and I'll do the splitting when I have time. It sounds like there's consensus here, so let's be bold. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What the f***? This page is too long.

This page is too long. What is up with all of this s***? It is way too detailed for an encyclopedia.

Greetings 70.177.55.109

I agree that the page is too long and on Feb 27, 2010, I already proposed a way in which to subdivide it. Some other editors agreed, and some other editors disagreed. The first part of that discussion is now archived and can be accessed by clicking here. Obviously, you have now opened the second part of that discussion, and that discussion can be continued here. Please access the first part of that discussion for many helpful links to Wikipedia guidelines on the subject of subdividing an article, the reasons for subdividing, etc.

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See below for the continuation of this discussion. Click here - Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How about merging section 3.1 and 6.1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.6.236 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)