Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 25 January 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Ohio / Youngstown Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio - Youngstown (assessed as Mid-importance). Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hyperbole

Some people continuously return here to insert statements about Laffer's glory. Please stop. Let's talk about what he did, and not about how he is the "greatest intransigent genius in recent memory." Asacarny 04:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This article fails to mention that Laffer has never been right about anything. Latest is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You should take what The New York Times (and Krugman) says, and believe the opposite. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) -- It is rather extreme to say a person has never been right about anything.

Napkin of eponymity?

The article contained this statement:

Laffer is believed to have derived this mathematical equation on a napkin, now affectionately depicted by economists as the "napkin of eponymity."

I've removed it, as no citation was given (either for the alleged napkin derivation or for the "affectionate" depiction by economists). Please feel free to restore it to the article if appropriate citations can be found. —Steven G. Johnson 03:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Who needs a citation? Lawrence Kudlow has talked about the napkin when interviewed. The story is well-known among supply-siders. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 12:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs citations (see Misplaced Pages:Cite sources) — the criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is not truth, but verifiability. A reference to one of the interviews with Lawrence Kudlow that you mention would be adequate, although an interview with Laffer himself would be ideal. A typical recounting seems to be:

"Useful economists are rare, so we should be grateful to Art Laffer. In 1974, dining with two ambitious young politicians called Cheney and Rumsfeld, he drew a curve on a napkin to show that since 100pc tax raises no money, there must be an optimum rate to maximise revenue. He guessed it might be quite low, since high rates destroy incentives and encourage evasion." ("The Art of maximising tax revenue - less equals more", Daily Telegraph p. O32, 17 May 2005).

However, there seems to be some dispute about whether Rumsfeld was present: Sketching the Laffer Curve. This page by Laffer cites the original story as coming from Jude Wanniski, "Taxes, Revenues, and the `Laffer Curve,'" The Public Interest, Winter 1978 — Laffer attributes the "Laffer Curve" term to Wanninsky. (Interestingly, Laffer claims here that Rumsfeld was present, but he says that he doesn't remember the details of that evening. Laffer also questions the story, saying: "My only question about Wanniski's version of the story is that the restaurant used cloth napkins and my mother had raised me not to desecrate nice things.")

I haven't been able to find any usages of "the napkin of eponymity" however, so it's not clear to me yet whether this is really a common phrase.

This is a good example of why references are useful, by the way — not only did the original Misplaced Pages sentence leave out interesting details like the presence of Cheney et al., it also seems to have gotten it somewhat wrong: the napkin doesn't seem to be where Laffer came up with the idea (he says in the article above that he used it in classes etc. all the time previously, and he attributes the idea to others in any case), but rather where he first presented it to important policy makers. I'll update the article based on the above references shortly. —Steven G. Johnson 15:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

All right. I've also never heard the term napkin of eponymity. It looks like that part of the sentence was garbage, but maybe the term is known by supply-siders. The story tells about a napkin though. That's for sure. Lawrence Kudlow was interviewed by The American Spectator (whatever that is). Here's part of the March 2001 interview archived on the Web site of Kudlow's company at http://www.kudlow.com/pdfs/American%20Spectator.pdf:

Kudlow: I don't know if it's fair to call O'Neill a Ford guy, but most of them are more free-market oriented today than they were 25 years ago. They've changed because they've seen how it can work. I think it's true for Cheney, true for Rumsfeld, true for O'Neill. They are, pardon the phrase, more conservative now. Although you know the Laffer Curve was launched in the Ford White House.

TAS: I thought it was launched on a cocktail napkin.

Kudlow: Yeah, but it was a Ford Administration cocktail napkin. Arthur Laffer was in Rumsfeld's office with Cheney in 1975. Laffer was a paid consultant. At cocktails, he drew the curve for them to explain how dropping tax rates from the prohibitive range would expand revenues. They couldn't convince Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Council, or Bill Simon, who was treasury secretary. So Ford never went with it. He had a tax rebate instead, an anti-recessionary "stimulus" like Jimmy Carter's. It lasted two quarters, pumped up the economy and evaporated. The economy sagged right down again.

As you see, Kudlow gives another year (1975 instead of 1974). Kudlow's a Laffer curve enthusiast, so he should know what he's talking about, but maybe the whole thing is just gossip. What I think, nonetheless, is that, no matter how gossipy or untrue the story is, it should be mentioned on the article, at least by warning the reader or by mentioning the different versions of the story. This legend about Laffer's napkin is well-known among supply-siders. That's why it should be mentioned. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What I think is the whole story's too fuzzy. I don't know what to believe, but, anyway, it's an entertaining story, and it gives the reader an impression of what supply-siders gossip about. At least it shows they're enthusiasts and they've got enough imagination to make up a whole story about a napkin in a cocktail party or wherever it was. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note that Kudlow's account is second-hand. Wanniski's and Laffer's accounts are both first-hand, and they both give 1974 as the date. (Also note that it is easy to mix up a year in a spoken interview, so I would think in any case that a written account would be more accurate.) Anyway, details of this anecdote belong more in Laffer curve than here, which is why I put a brief summary here and more details there. —Steven G. Johnson 21:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Publications

Using Microsoft Word's Word Count feature, I find that this article contains 4991 words (includes mark-ups and formatting, etc), with 4452 words -- about 89% -- taken up by the publication list. This is ludicrous, since this amount of text, what with all the quoting, either should be expunged/ruthlessly pared or moved to Wikiquote. A quick skim shows that little of the extensive quoted material has much information value, either as history, original thought, or illustrations of work/character, so I'm on the side of "ruthless paring". Any thoughts before I break out the chainsaw? --Calton | Talk 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, there's no space limitation here, and a good source of information about a person is their own words. What grievous harm does it do that motivates you to "break out the chainsaw"? —Steven G. Johnson 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that WP:NOT's guidelines on quotations just about covers it. It would perhaps be better to write in prose form a summation of what his various standpoints are, and then copy all the quotations over to Wikiquote. Nach0king 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Death Tax??

I'm editing out "Death Tax" and replacing with the proper term "Inheritance Tax". It will be interesting to see if anyone really wants to try to argue that the term "death tax" isn't a pejorative and a POV. Kenwg (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll play. "Inheritance Tax" is not the "proper term", because the tax is not levied upon any inheritance. The "income tax" is levied on income; the "gift tax" is levied on gifts; the "capital gains tax" is levied on capital gains. Therefore, "inheritance tax" is _not_ the correct term, because the tax is not levied on the inheritance or on those who inherit. Under the Internal Revenue Code, there is no tax levied on any inheritance; instead, the tax is levied on the estate of the decedent: that is the reason that the tax is called the "estate tax". Oconnell usa (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems like a sensible point. Tax the inheritor, then call it inheritance tax Dragonlord kfb (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice that this thread goes back to 2008. I heard Dr Laffer speak at the annual Hillsdale College event yesterday (over 300 attended) and he was the luncheon keynote speaker. The first question after his well-received keynote was on the optimum approach to setting tax rates. A main point of his answer included this. There is a video of his keynote--I'll locate the URL and post here for future editing here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Can someone who knows add the pronounciation key for the last name? Is it laugh-er or lah-fer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.156.174 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is pronounced laugh-er. The genelogical origination is German/Prussian although there are Laffer's in Switzerland that are also related to us. Signed - Arthur B. Laffer, Jr. (son) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.157.176 (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Publications redux

Can this section be trimmed/cleanup/removed/whatever. As pointed out 3 years ago, it takes up most of the article? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A piece written for a newspaper is hardly equivalent to an article in an academic journal. In my opinion, we should retain only his academic publications, and remove those for newspapers. Anyone disagree with this?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Id like to see *some* of his newspaper articles linked here, if for no other reason than so readers can follow the links and get a sample of his works. Obviously, the list can be pared down from its far too large former self. Bonewah (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Could you select the ones to keep? Thanks.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I re-added a few that I thought were directly or closely related to his most important work, or were generally pretty interesting. I avoided any article that is behind a pay wall or were too far afield to be included (carbon tax, energy stuff mostly). What is your opinion on the following:

• Arthur B. Laffer, "That Stimulus Nonsense", Wall Street Journal (February 13, 2008).
• Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore, "New Evidence on Taxes and Income", Wall Street Journal (September 15, 2008).

add them or no? Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Anyone else have an opinion? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Antarctican

Does such a thing exist? Can we get a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Departure from U of C

I dated one of his PhD candidates in the mid-1970's. I knew Arthur Laffer. He was forced to leave the U of C because they discovered he never actually completed his PhD. I can't remember whether he never finished his thesis or he never defended his thesis. It was needless to say, typical Laffer, arrogantly not troubled by his misrepresentation to the UofC. This is a FACT. He never got his PhD in 1971, though, he may have worked out some deal whereby they back dated his PhD date when he finally completed his PhD. Why is this not mentioned? I am going to get source links for this fact and modify this entry accordingly. BTW, I saw him on TV and he looks creapyly like he did in the mid '70's. He loves turtles and had at the time a huge fern collection (which was very beautiful). (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC) This just seems like a petty personal attack. You are incorrect. He was awarded his PhD 1971 per Stanford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.222.61 (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Put work in perspective

Yeah so you sketch out his theory.

But how has it panned out in actual practice over the past 40 years and what's Laffer's reputation & standing within his profession?

No clue to any of this available from reading article.

2602:302:D6A:B2C0:D0E6:5987:9FD3:684D (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Laffer and politics

Laffer is meeting with the top Republican candidate hopefuls to promote an 11.8% flat tax; this short video is excellent in showing Art Laffer in politics. 'Economics' will be very big in the 2016 election(s) and Laffer's visibility will only rise. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Laffer curve criticisms

In my opinion, the description of the Laffer curve should be a brief overview only, there is no need to go into a lengthy discussion about its supporters and detractors. As such, i think the edit "Numerous leading economists have rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to current federal US income taxes in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed. In response to this survey question, Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago said, “That’s a Laffer." Is inappropriate here. Bonewah (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to user:Gamaliel in this edit, i would agree if that criticism was a really important part of the Laffer curve. This one is not, its merely a poll about one specific instance of the applicability of the Laffer curve, not the concept generally. Again, we have a whole article on the Laffer curve where this can be discussed in detail, no need to add it everywhere. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess i should elaborate here, in addition to the concerns expressed on supply-side economics talk, that the edit is US centric, that it applies only to one particular time and one particular tax, that claiming that they majority of the economists surveyed "rejected" or disagreed with the Laffer curve is inaccurate, i think the edit should be removed from this article because this is not an article about the Laffer curve, it is about Laffer himself, and, as such, any coverage of the Laffer curve should be a brief, high level overview, with any details covered in the laffer curve article, not here. The edit above is currently in the Laffer curve article and so is irrelevant here. Bonewah (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Laffer curve is what he's known for. So yes, a discussion of the Laffer curve is most certainly relevant to this article. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The question isnt what Laffer is know for, the question is, to what extent do we discuss the Laffer curve here, and what should that discussion entail. As discussed in supply side economics talk, this particular edit is a weak criticism at best, that only sort of applies to the Laffer curve, that only applies to the US, that only applies to Federal income taxes, that only applies to 2102 and doesnt really accurately describe what the source says, and its not really a reliable source anyway. Ive said this already, both in supply side economics talk, which you participated in, and above, so if you are going to revert, at least address my criticisms, which, by the way numerous other editors have echoed. Bonewah (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

He isn't known for anything other than the Laffer Curve so anything about the curve seems pertinent. Suppy Side Economics has a lot more too it than the Laffer Curve. in this case, talking about the curve is the only thing Arthur Laffer is notable for doing. Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, the question isnt, should we talk about the Laffer curve, the question is, is this material suitable for a quick summary? In my opinion, no, for the many reasons listed above. We decided that this material didnt belong in the lede of the Laffer curve article, why should it be included in a brief summary of the Laffer curve? Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this material is suitable. It seems that there are multiple editors who agree, and who disagree with you. Volunteer Marek  15:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, you arent even addressing my concerns, just declaring yourself to be right. You and one other editor hardly represent some overwhelming consensus, perhaps we should solicit opinions of those who commented on supply side economics? Bonewah (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Worth noting here, User:Lipsquid accepted my view on nearly an identical edit in a nearly identical situation on Jude Wanniski. See here on Talk:Jude_Wanniski#Criticisms_of_the_Laffer_curve_yet_again.. Bonewah (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with changing the edit here, but thank you for including me. I think it is very noteworthy about Mr. Laffer himself. I would not support deleting it. Lipsquid (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok ill bite, in what way is this edit substantially different than the one you just agreed to remove in Jude Wanniski? Bonewah (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit is the same, but the article is different. If someone wants to source something about the economic impact of the Laffer Curve on Arthur Laffer's page, that seems completely reasonable. A sourced edit about the economics of the Laffer Curve on Jude Wanniski's page seems to not be very noteworthy to me. I would probably feel different if it was called the Wanniski Curve. You seem like a sane guy and it has been pretty easy to work with you now that we know each other, why do you want to remove sourced information that isn't even really critical of the Laffer Curve everywhere? Can't we just provide the information and let people decide for themselves? Lipsquid (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We do provide this information, in the article about the Laffer Curve, which we link to here. Again, the issue is that the reference to the Laffer Curve here is meant to be a very brief overview of it, not an in depth analysis. Anyone interested in the Laffer curve is expected to follow the link to learn more. Further, as i stated above, the edit in question is only limited relevance anyway, as it only applies to the US, only applies to federal income taxes, only applies to 2012 and doesnt fully reflect what the economists surveyed said. You also seem like a sane guy, who is interested in making a better encyclopedia, so i ask you, please dont make me restate the same objections over and over. If you are going to object, at least make an effort to respond to what you know i find troubling about these edits. Ive had to re-litigate the same thing 4 times now and it gets tedious to point out over and over again that this material is of extremely limited applicability. I thought we all collaborated nicely at supply-side economics and Laffer curve in that the information did end up in Misplaced Pages, but edited to reflect what the citation actually said and moved to a place appropriate for its importance. I find it baffling that we could all agree that this material doesnt belong in the lede of supply-side economics, doesnt belong in the lede of the Laffer curve, doesnt belong in an overview of the Laffer curve at Jude Wanniski, but have to argue that it does somehow belong in a brief overview of the Laffer curve here. Why are still covering the same ground? What is so different about this edit that didnt apply the last 3 times we went over this? Bonewah (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to be difficult, I really think this is noteworthy in this article. It is not in the lede, it is in the Laffer Curve section. Lowering taxes does not increase inflation adjusted government revenue, never has, never will. Other than the very obvious somewhere between 0% and 100% taxes there is a peak tax rate, everything Arthur talks about "is a Laffer". Lipsquid (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So this is different from Jude Wanniski because... you dont like it? Bonewah (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I do like it. To believe a study of the economics of the Laffer Curve is inappropriate on Jude Wanniski's page, but find it appropriate on Arthur Laffer's page seems perfectly reasonable. I would add more studies if I could find any. Lipsquid (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"I do like it" is just as unreasonable as "i Dont like it", the problem being that you are not offering any substantive reason beyond your personal tastes. Im going to go further and point out that you haven't responded to any of my concerns here, which is required in a collaborative environment like Misplaced Pages. Im trying to assume good faith here, but you are acting like you are not listening.Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not my edit, you asked if I thought if it was a good fit for this article and I think it is a reasonable edit, you don't like that answer so you assume I don't have good faith? I suggest you contact the original editor on their user page and ask them about their edit. Lipsquid (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, i assume you dont have good faith because you are making me argue the exact same thing over and over without regard for what was previously said. Reasonable people discuss, unreasonable people ignore what has been discussed and expect they should get what they want anyway. Indeed, you are not just ignoring what im saying, you are ignoring what you said in three other places. But, you are right, i should assume more good faith than i have, so here is what im going to do. Im going to remove the objectionable material and assume that if you legitimately have an issue with that, you will discuss here how we can resolve it before re-adding the material back in. And by discuss i mean acknowledge and respond to both my concerns and to what you yourself have said elsewhere. Bonewah (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is most obviously relevant to the man, as this is what he's known for. You can ask for outside comments here by starting an RfC or go to NPOV notice board. Volunteer Marek  16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh how delightful, another editor who has no interest in actual discussion and yet feels entitled to simply edit the article without regard to my concerns. Yea, im thinking some kind of RfC or notice board is most likely in order here. Bonewah (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's sort of impossible to discuss anything with you because you just repeat the same assertion over and over again without substantiation. Obviously since the Laffer curve is what he's known for it should be discussed in the article. Do you actually disagree with that?  Volunteer Marek  17:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Im repeating the same thing because numerous editors have agreed with me that those concerns are legitimate. Im forced to repeat the same things because you choose to ignore anything you dont like. For example, you ask, "Obviously since the Laffer curve is what he's known for it should be discussed in the article. Do you actually disagree with that?" The answer is no I dont disagree with that, i disagree that this particular edit is of enough import to include in a quick summary of the Laffer curve. You should know that as i said exactly that to you like 9 comments above, which was the 5th time i said it. And yet here you are, asking again as if ive never said anything, ignoring the numerous other objections i lodged at the outset of this talk, and then was forced to reiterate over an over. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What "numerous editors"? The comments on this page go back ten years, and as far as I can see you're the sole supporter of your view. MAybe you could, I dunno, hold an RFC to provide some proof of your numerous supporters instead repeating the same rejected arguments over and over again? --Calton | Talk 04:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The numerous editors were mostly on the supply side economics talk sections about the same subject. Since i didnt link to it, i dont expect you would necessarily have seen it, but Volunteer Marek not only has seen it, he participated in it, and as such, i expect that he/she could at least stop pretending this has not been discussed before. Bonewah (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

But this isn't true either. And anyway the issue is on this article and here the consensus is against you. Volunteer Marek  14:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Which part isnt true? That you participated in the discussion supply side economics talk or that you are pretending that this hasent been discussed before? Bonewah (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't be daft. The part that isn't true is that "numerous editors" on supply side economics supported you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal life section

Where's the 'Personal life' section? I wanted to know his current residence state, and all I can surmise from the article is that he was a distinguished professor in Georgia after being a professor near Malibu California. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the Laffer Curve, economists poll

I have opened an RfC on the economists poll and the Laffer curve on the Jude Wanniski talk page. The discussion is similar to what we discussed above, if you participated in that discussion, I would appreciate your comments on that RfC as well. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC for the Jude Wanniski page does not automatically apply to the Arthur Laffer page. This should be obvious. What may be undue on Jude Wanniski page may not be undue here. Especially since the curve was, you know, named after him. You need a separate RfC for this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Um no. The RfC specifically mentions this page, and you and everyone else who participated had ample opportunity to express any objection there. In addition to that, I mentioned the RfC here and even went to far as to ping every single editor who participated in that RfC. If you think that somehow the very clear consensus that has been expressed over and over again somehow doesnt apply to this page despite an RfC that explicitly says so, its incumbent on you to pursue further dispute resolution, not me. Bonewah (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Which they did: "Wrong article, nothing to discuss here. If you want an RfC for an article, open it on that article's talk page. The format and general requirements are laid out on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment". Bottomline, that's not how an RfC works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The opinion of one editor doesnt overturn the RfC. And i cant help but notice that you didnt even bother to comment until now, despite ample opportunity to do so. In any event, the onus is on you to demonstrate that this material should be added. Bonewah (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Ohio articles
• Mid-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• Start-Class Youngstown articles
• Mid-importance Youngstown articles
• WikiProject Youngstown articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles