Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:04, 4 July 2007

Law B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expanding the page

I'm creating a proper competition law page, which doesn't merely redirect to the Antitrust page, covering US law on the matter. It'll be far bigger, and better, and hopefully it'll be done properly before long. Wikidea 09:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I've finished most of what I can manage for today. The detail in practice, and more work on the theory will follow when I go to the library and have a bit more time. But the sections all have something in them now of use and hopefully the changes are liked. Wikidea 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Article length

This article is currently 55KB. Misplaced Pages:Article size recommends considering splitting up articles over 30 or 40KB. I recently read this article for the first time, and though it has lots of excellent information, my patience was definitely taxed by two-thirds of the way through. The length and reader experience I think are signs that it's too detailed for a brief overview. What can be done about it? The history section essentially includes both "Competition law history" and "Competition law today", and is long enough for an article on its own. I think these eight sections should be split off into an article on the "History of competition law" and a summary half the current length left in its place. The "Competition law theory" section is rather dry and technical. It could also be moved to a new article and summarized here in a paragraph or two. Splitting into subarticles will help make room for further expansion; I'm afraid this single page can't hold much more. -- Beland 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but Beland, as an experienced administrator you should know that a huge number of featured articles do go beyond 40KB. If I removed all the photos I'd cut it down. It's simply a piece of guidance, which gives a suggestion as a warning for people who create pages that waffle. Think about this from the point of view from someone coming to the page who wants to learn about competition law - a student for instance. They'll want detail and they'll find it in this page. I'm really sorry your patience is taxed, but you can find a good summary in the intro, per WP:LEAD style, can't you. Wikidea 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sheer number of wikitext characters, it's a matter of the amount of prose that readers have to wade through. (Which photos are actually rather good at breaking up.) I am a person that was coming to the page looking for information on the topic, and I found that this article didn't do a concise job of summarizing the topic. I'm all for having lots of detail in the encyclopedia for those that want it, but that's independent of page size. When articles get too big, they get split up into subarticles. Look at say, the History of the People's Republic of China, which is a huge subject, but the main article is under 32KB, which is a nice single-sitting chunk. The lead is a one-paragraph summary of the topic, but the idea of the 30KB target length is to provide a one-page summary for those (like me) who want more detail than that. -- Beland 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask for some outside opinions on this question, so we can get a more meaningful consensus. -- Beland 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For every article you can cite that's under, I can cite one that's way over. Take, e.g. Byzantine Empire which is 121 KB in size. It's also got a star which the History of the People's Republic of China doesn't. Wikidea 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't entirely agree that Byzantine Empire is an appropriate length, and there have been complaints about the length on the talk page there as well. But that subject also has a lot more material to cover than this one. It's certainly a judgement call, which is why I have asked for additional opinions. -- Beland 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to see you contributing something rather than just criticising. When I say contribute, I mean the act involved in picking up a book, reading it, and writing something about that which is inside. Wikidea 11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo-liberal reference requested

I requested citations for the claims that neo-liberals were once considered cranks, and that they are now an influential or dominant school of thought. User:Wikidea removed my request for a citation and commented on my talk page:

as for the facts needed post, I'm removing that too because the discussion goes on to substantiate what I've said. If you have a read of some of their material at a library, then you see it all there.

The later discussion does not substantiate these claims, it merely covers the ideas of neo-liberals in more detail. It is not sufficient to say that one would find that the claims are substantiated if one visits a library; Misplaced Pages:Verifiability requires that specific sources be cited, or the material be removed. Moreover, it is not these authors themselves who determine whether they are cranks or influential, and they are not reliable sources for this information. Reliable third-party sources are needed to support these claims. -- Beland 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I stand by that lovely excerpt that you've now deleted from your user page. I don't have the book to hand, it's by Frank Stilwell and is called Political Economy. Of course the neo liberals were considered cranks! It only changed when Thatcher and Reagan came to power in the late seventies and early eighties, when the things these economists had been advocating were put into practice. Change the sentence if you're really dying to. It's a little sad to cling a fact citation template in one sentence in a page as big as this. Anyway, I'd like to see you contributing a little more and criticising a little less. Wikidea 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to think that fact-checking is an important contribution. "Cranks" in particular is a strong word that carries a strong value judgement, and so properly documenting it is particularly important. If this attitude toward neo-liberalism was so notable, why isn't it mentioned on neoliberalism? I'll add in the citation needed tag. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but if it bothers you, feel free to resolve it by citing a reliable source. -- Beland 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bork phrasing

I restored a previous edit of mine rephrasing part the discussion of Bork's views. The old phrasing was simply difficult to parse, and I had to read it several times to make sense of it. The new phrasing is an attempt to say the same thing using a sentence structure which is easier to grasp on first reading. Most of the problem with the previous phrasing was the use of a double negative: "nothing beyond X should be prohibited". Expressing this using a single negative - "only X should be prohibited" is simpler and clearer. -- Beland 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Wikidea 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ICN link

The mention of the International Competition Network is about twice as long in this article as it needs to be. There's no need to mention the web site of the organization here because it's linked from the article. Also, such references belong in the "External links" section, they shouldn't be pointed out explicitly in the main text of the article. -- Beland 19:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't understand what's wrong with putting in the ICN's website. If you can fish out a copy of Richard Whish's Competition Law (2003) he has a whole chapter section on it - pp.448-9. Of course external links can go in footnotes, and so what if there's another page for it. Don't delete it again. Wikidea 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you just wanted to put a footnote on the organization's name that contained a pointer to the website, that would be better though still redundant, considering the name is a link to a whole Misplaced Pages article about the organization. But devoting a whole sentence to the existence of the web site is adding unnecessary length to an already overly long article. It also over-emphasizes the web site, which is why it came across to me as self-promotional. The article text is supposed to be stating facts; pointers to outside sources for additional information go in footnotes or the external links section. If you look at other places where organizations are named, like Non-profit#Examples, you won't see any external links, just internal ones. -- Beland 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

From the subsection title ("Neo-liberal radicalism") to the text that refuses to take Bork or Posner seriously, misrepresents their views, and smears them as "cranks", this section is appallingly violative of NPOV requirements. -- THF 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for you insight Ted, and glad to have such a notable professional in the field having a read. I've removed the appalling smear. Wikidea 19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court started adopting Bork's competition-law views in 1977 in GTE Sylvania before Thatcher or Reagan came to power. The section presents a caricature of Posner's views and Bork's views. And in fifteen years in this area, I've never once seen anyone refer to it as "neoliberal radicalism" except on Misplaced Pages. THF 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Groan. Will you please not add that neutrality tag again? I can't really do much unless you suggest something. I would have thought Bork might have happily seen himself as a radical. Does he still work with you Ted? Maybe you can ask him? Is he your boss? And so far as neo-liberal goes, to my mind that's a pretty normal way of describing economists who reacted to the post war consensus, like Friedman. Would you prefer "neo-conservative"? Make a constructive suggestion or two, please, otherwise I'd appreciate it if you stopped complaining. Wikidea 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? My problems are (1) the inaccurate and POV-pushing "radicalism" characterization that exist only on Misplaced Pages; (2) the mischaracterization of Bork's views; (3) the mischaracterization of Posner's views; (4) the failure to recognize that the Chicago School reflects mainstream legal thought in the United States endorsed by all nine of the current Supreme Court justices; (5) the failure to mention Aaron Director; and (6) various personal opinions stated in the section in violation of NPOV and NOR. The neutrality tag stays until the neutrality violations are fixed. The entire section needs to be rewritten, preferably with reliance on reliable sources instead of an editor's idiosyncratic characterizations. THF 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I said "constructive". And when you edit, can you make sure you aren't messing up the heading and punctuation? You haven't told me why the direct quotations are mischaracterisations. As for personalisation, if you want to deal in words like appalling smears, then you can at least expect some ironic horseplay in return. Do you mean that Bork isn't your boss? The neutrality tag goes, mate, and instead of being boring, fish out a book, look something up and write about it. Wikidea 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I listed six separate violations of NPOV in the section and made constructive suggestions. You haven't defended any of problems, you've just played edit-war. Fix the NPOV problem and you won't have an NPOV tag. THF 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You've said zero that is specific. There is barely a sentence that is not direct quotation or direct reference. Unless you tell me which direct quotation or which direct reference is not to your pleasure, there is nothing I can do .

You did not respond yourself to my suggestions for another title. You have not suggested alternatives yourself . The first sentence which I've already deleted said that Chicago school economics had come to the point of dominance and you wanted it deleted . If you want someone new added, then do the opposite of your current cynical approach, get out a book, and write . You continue to contribute nothing, even your criticisms with vague references "various opinions" contribute nothing . You can still redeem yourself, but you are beginning to look a bit hopeless, and as I said before, boring. Wikidea 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your persistent personal attacks, obnoxious talk-page edit summaries, and lack of civility are not productive. Perhaps you have comments on the edits I had to waste time making because your response to NPOV problems was to delete the tag and pretend they weren't there instead of fixing them? -- THF 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo-liberalism/Chicago school section

Thanks for your changes, but I've put back the referenced material, and put the stuff about Reagan and the Supreme Court together at the beginning. Please in future say which sentences you don't approve of in particular. If you had done that to begin with, then there might not have been the fuss. I've deleted the reference to "neo-liberalism" in the monopoly section - I presume that's what you object to? Wikidea 08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I object to the mischaracterization of the Chicago School positions, and the lack of balance in the dominance and monopoly section, like I said. The referenced material was taken out for a reason.

• The entire article gives short shrift to Chicago School positions and lacks balance.

The entire article now? Blimey! Actually, I thought it was a page about law. Hopefully they aren't mentioned outside the parts on theory except in passing, like any other theorist.

• Posner's views are not "pro-big business."

Alright, I'll remove it. Although, you're wrong - competition not competitors, etc.

• Milton Friedman is not prominent in competition law issues, and the article is a caricature of his positions.

Come on, he's a towering thinker of the twentieth century, and part of the same body of opinion! You're pulling our legs!

• I don't know what "In fact monopolies, they say, are created by government intervention that nationalises or attempts to regulate markets." is meant to say, because it's so vague as to be meaningless, along with weasel words, but that sort of sentence is typical of the mischaracterizations.

Isn't it true? Nationalisation and regulation create monopolies, say the Chicago School. I'm not saying their views are good or bad at all!

• What the heck does "The deep splits existing in economic theory was even fought out in the US Supreme Court on one occasion, with Professor Philip Areeda, who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, pitted against Robert Bork's preference for non intervention." mean? Every antitrust litigation is fought out by opposing economic experts, and antitrust issues are decided in the Supreme Court annually. It's a non-notable fact and a contentless sentence.

I think the point is, that two very prominent academics got into litigation, which was in a way that isn't usual.

Oh, and I've even got a published author who agrees with me - Giorgio Monti, EC Competition Law (2007), whose first chapter you can see online here - see bottom of page 2.

• The whole page needs rewriting. Pronoun reference problems and sludgy writing everywhere.

At least I put verbs in my sentences.

• The edits you made took issues out of chronological order.

Mean to I didn't, sorry.

I don't have time to take on such tasks. I add tags, hoping people who know what they're doing pay attention to the page. Removing the tags without fixing the problem is not a solution; insulting those who point out the problem is offensive on its own, and violates WP:CIVIL. -- THF 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don't just add tags, because you did begin to make some contributions. If you are just adding tags, and waiting for someone else who knows what they're doing to come along, how do you know that adding tags is correct? And anyway, adding tags isn't productive. I think you should stop, especially if you don't have the time. I can see this is raising your stress levels, which is not helpful, and I'm sorry for that. Please be specific, go slowly and assume good faith. Wikidea 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class law articles
• Top-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• High-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles