Talk:Competition law - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by THF (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 4 July 2007 (→Article length: Example of Sen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:40, 4 July 2007 by THF (talk | contribs) (→Article length: Example of Sen)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Law B‑class Top‑importance

	Law portal 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

	Business portal 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)

Beland makes legitimate criticisms, and instead of addressing them, Wikidea simply insults. The article is filled with redundancies and irrelevant trivia and could easily be cut. However, because of a severe WP:OWN problem, even my own minor cuts of 0.8K have been reverted, so it appears to be pointless to try until more editors can be brought to bear on the subject. THF 10:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

One very good example of both the bloat of the article and its POV-failings is the extensive discussion of Amartya Sen's views. Who cares? Nothing cited directly impacts competition law; he's had no influence in the area. That Amartya Sen is mentioned six times, while Richard Epstein and Frank Easterbrook (who are deeply involved in antitrust) were mentioned not at all before I added one footnote to Easterbrook is telling. The criticism of neoclassical economics belongs not in the article at all: it just bloats it with irrelevancies for a collateral matter. THF 17:40, 4 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)

Perhaps you should take your own advice before you make edits like this one, where you are so desperate to revert the NPOV tag before someone sees it that you scotch the picture caption. THF 09:49, 4 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)

Please stop removing the NPOV tag. The NPOV tag reflects a dispute over the neutrality of the page. It remains until either (1) the editor disputing neutrality agrees to remove the tag, or (2) there is a consensus among other editors that the tag is inappropriate. It is hard for me to assume good faith when you edit-war like this, still haven't apologized for your repeated insults, and respond to legitimate concerns with snide remarks. Bring it up for an RFC. I'm done playing games with you, and you plainly don't wish to edit collaboratively. -- THF 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I make no apologies to you or for the way I will continue to deal with your inflammatory approach. I have address every solitary specific concern you have raised, and each time, after doing what you request have taken down the tag. Without saying what you think is wrong, borking the page's neutrality is pure vandalism. You work for a conservative thinktank as you say on your user page. This leads me to believe that you have another agenda. I wish you all the best in your positive contributions, but you have no place on Misplaced Pages if all you want to do is dole out shrill complaints that nobody knows how to address. Wikidea 09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And one a lighter note, I do appreciate you adding those cases - but could you please put in the citations for me? The US Antitrust law page would benefit greatly from someone like you who perhaps knows about the Supreme court's jurisprudence explaining it. Wikidea 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And again with the violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:3RR. I'd like the page to be accurate and neutral. Right now, it's neither, and I'm getting insulted for my troubles. THF 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute since June 2007

An edit-warring editor refuses to acknowledge a legitimate dispute over whether this article is neutral, and, because of apparent WP:OWN problems, repeatedly removes the tag in violation of WP:3RR. I won't re-add it, but I dispute the neutrality of the page, which is written from an anti-Chicago-School point of view, and fails to equally weight the predominant strain of theory in American competition law. -- THF 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete list of problems:

Entire article poorly and unclearly written, ~~including use of undefined Eurocentric jargon such as "hard core cartel"~~; passive voice, pronoun reference problems, and weasel words abound, as do grammar and punctuation problems and non sequiturs and irrelevant trivia such as Posner's six-year stint in the Justice Department, which Wikidea reinserted after I deleted.

Posner's work at the Antitrust division is relevant to his expertise. Hard core cartel is not Eurocentric jargon. Here is a paper from the International Competition Network for you.

Non sequitur. Why isn't Bork's work as Solicitor General and years of antitrust litigation relevant to his expertise? (The answer: this is an article about competition law, not Bork. Same for Posner.) THF 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone throughout.
No acknowledgement that Chicago School view of competition law is dominant theory behind US federal antitrust law, or the huge shift in American competition law between 1977 and 2007.

This is in the first sentence of the chicago school paragraph.

No mention of Chicago School critique of leverage theory of anticompetitive behavior; instead leverage is taken as example of anticompetitive behavior: "One case in point could be a software company who through its monopoly on computer platforms makes consumers use its media player" violates NPOV -- it is not unanimous opinion that this is anticompetitive.

Maybe you can put it in the Chicago School (economics) article? This is an article about law - the sentence says could, and cited is an EU case that says it was. There's theoretical disagreement which the article (and your own opinions) make clear.

You greatly misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy if you think this response resolves the issue. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At minimum, we should explain that European law tends to see this as uncompetitive behavior although it's a theoretically controversial point. Weasel words do not cancel out POV. Imagine if war crime said that Henry Kissenger "could" be considered a typical war criminal. BLP concerns aside, such a statement sacrifices both accuracy and NPOV for the sake of a poorly-picked example. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"regulation becomes necessary to protect the ideal market model" -- very obvious POV

That's written in a reported speech form, in grammar lessons it's called the subjunctive tense. It doesn't make a statement, it reflects what the neo-classical stream believes.

The subjective tense has no business in a Misplaced Pages article. As poorly phrased, it creates POV problems. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"The two largest, most organised and influential systems of competition regulation are United States antitrust law and European Community competition law. The respective national authorities, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the European Commission's Competition Directorate General (DGCOMP) have formed international support and enforcement networks." is factually incorrect; the FTC also has a competition-law role in the US.

Please go ahead and add the FTC, and don't pretend anyone minds.

Well, you do, you keep reverting my edits. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Competition law history section also inaccurate and pro-intervention POV

There's no pro intervention slant. Have you heard of Conservapedia?

No mention of adverse effects of government price-fixing; this is typical problem of article, which has multiple detailed cites to Sen's criticism of classical school, but none of criticism of interventionism

The entire section on the Chicago school is a criticism of interventionism.

No, the entire section on the Chicago school is trivia about Chicago school members. Again, lack of balance. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

THF is entirely right. I cannot understand why we should cite two of Posner's books inline without even hinting about what his views are or they are or why they became influential. This section still reads as if a capitalist cabal of cranks was sinisterly stationed into positions of power by Ronald Reagan. It mentions some of the key players and documents their relationships, but nobody could read this article and have any idea why the Chicago School thinks as they do. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Sherman Act was deficient in a number of respects, its broadbrush approach being one of them. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's federal government sued 45 companies, and William Taft used it against 75. Furthermore, the Sherman Act was used to sue trade unions, whose members, working employees, attempted to bargain collectively for better pay and conditions in their contractual terms - a far cry from the wealth extorted from the economy by monopolists." -- you have to be kidding. That whole section has obvious POV problems.

Please add criticism if you wish. If you pick up a book and suggest something, you'll impress me.

WP:CIVIL, please. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of Chicago School views throughout article

Nonsense.

Mischaracterization of Friedman views, which, in any event, are relatively non-notable in context of American competition law

They're direct quotes. You haven't replied to what I wrote above. Friedman is a towering figure of economic theory in 20th century

Non sequitur. John Maynard Keynes is a towering figure of economic theory in the twentieth century, but he doesn't have two sentences about his supposed attacks on big business (which for Friedman's "direct quotes" remain uncited, while the one cite to Friedman doesn't support the sentence), because, like Friedman, he had no impact on American competition law. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"When firms hold large market shares, up to one hundred percent, consumers are probably at risk of paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than if the market were competitive." - unclear meaning, and very poor explication of problem of market power, as well as conveying disputed POV that market share = market power

The next sentence makes clear that the Chicago School differs on this. Please clear up meaning of market power in the article.

"However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can have a knock on effect on the deal that consumers get." obvious POV problem, inaccurate, and unencyclopedic

The sentence prior to that one makes clear that mergers can be beneficial. Same as your last complaint, you don't want both sides of the story to be told.

"The deep splits existing in economic theory was even fought out in the US Supreme Court on one occasion" factually incorrect wrt "one occasion." That Areeda and Bork participated in a particular Supreme Court case seems irrelevant trivia; economists file briefs in just about every US Supreme Court antitrust case in the last thirty years. -- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"One occassion" is a figure of speech, like "one instance". I also replied to the same complaint above.Wikidea 12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As these response show, there's a WP:OWN problem that makes it futile to work on this article until Wikidea surrenders the notion that he is above editing collaboratively. Editors who attempt even minor edits are subjected to personal attacks and accusations of an agenda. Wikidea apparently sees no problem with the POV locution where the one position is stated as Chicago Schoolers' opinion, while the opposite position is stated as "However, the opposite position is true." In a 55K article, he refuses to delete a single non-germane whit of trivia, despite countless suggestions. THF 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories: