Misplaced Pages

Then find sources that show this, don't assume! What's so hard to understand about this? NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well you will love my new edits. Every sentence is based on a citation from highly respected news organizations! And they are not from 2009 and 2011 like the citations in the Reserve currency section, for example. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit War has been started by another user

As the history will confirm, NorthernFactoid has reverted every modification I have made to this article, particularly those that discuss the major devaluation of the dollar.

I cannot believe that a Misplaced Pages article on a currency has no mention of the plunge in value that started in mid-2014. The current content and most citations pre-date the major devaluation. The article makes it sound as if the dollar were still valuable.

Yes, in May 2014, the dollar seemed to be sound and NorthernFactoid bases his content on articles such as this that pre-dated the plunge. May 13, 2014 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-resilience-has-foreign-central-banks-loading-up-on-loonies/article18635614/

However, especially since 2014, there has been a major devaluation. In 2013, the Canadian dollar was at par with the US dollar but that has since changed dramatically. Jan. 12, 2016, from the Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/12/canadian-dollar-lurches-lower/ The Canadian dollar continued its slide on Tuesday, as it dropped to the C$1.43 mark against the greenback for the first time since 2003. Inverting that rate, one Canadian dollar will now get you less than 70 US cents south of the border. Having traded at parity with greenback as recently as the middle of 2013, the Loonie, as the Canadian dollar is known, has struggled over the past 18 months amid a double whammy of the oil price collapse and expectations for a divergence in monetary policies between the Canadian and US central banks. The Canadian dollar was among the world’s worst performing major currencies last year, losing 16 per cent of its value against its US counterpart. It has extended its losses so far this year by another 3.2 per cent.

It is unbelievable that an on-line encyclopedia's article would ignore such facts. I intend to revise the article again, and if my revisions are reverted again by NorthernFactoid, I will definitely seek assistance using the Dispute resolution, WP:DRR Peter K Burian (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're completely missing my point NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What point am I missing NorthernFactoid? The article, as per your edit (after reverting my revisions) was frozen in time, at a time when the value of the Canadian dollar was high. Too many of the citations are from 2009 to 2013 when the dollar was strong. Granted you added some new ones about foreign countries still holding Canadian dollars. But I did not see any coverage about the past 18 months - the era of the plummeting Loonie - in your text. I repeat: It is unbelievable that an on-line encyclopedia's article would ignore such facts.

As you will see, I have done some editing again today that does now include that information. If you revert it again - to again remove all mention of the low value of the dollar - I will have the final grounds to file for Dispute Resolution.

•The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN." OK, we have nicely met that requirement. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're making assumptions and not sourcing them! You're also using forecasts made by currency traders and treating that as fact. Forecasts don't mean anything, and therefore cannot be treated as fact. What's so hard to understand about this? Stop editing until you reach consensus. You're not respecting this; the edit war has been started by you! NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. In your most recent 20:50, 13 January 2016‎ edit, you added something about the holdings in Candian dollars, but you also deleted a sentence I had written and failed to mention that deletion in your Edit summary. (This was it: Although this currency was on par with the US dollar in mid-2013, it has experienced significant devaluation since mid- 2014 and was one of the world’s worst performing major currencies in 2015.) No problem, I have added it back. Delete it once again and I will have full grounds for Dispute Resolution. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Canadian dollar value

One Canadian editor in particular seems to be obsessed with including references to the Canadian dollar's recent decline relative to the US dollar. From an internationalist perspective, why should the bulk of discussion on 'value' of the Canadian dollar be described only in US dollar terms (as if to imply CAD and USD are the only two currencies on Earth)? If the consensus says the Canadian dollar's exclusive decline in US dollar terms deserves mentioning, there's no need to mention this in the opening paragraphs when it would be better suited to the value section—not unlike all other currency articles on Misplaced Pages (including this one until today). There's certainly no need for a 'declining value' subsection when 'value' already denotes both increases and decreases in numerical forex value. Also, there can be no unverified opinion or hearsay inferred from the mere forex value of the currency relative to its US counterpart. Furthermore, sources used to corroborate points should not include theoretical future currency forecasts treated as contemporary fact—i.e. more opinion WP:QUESTIONABLE. As all major forex valuations fluctuate constantly, I feel it's counterproductive to make changes to this article every time the Canadian dollar hits a new high or low in US dollar terms.

It's odd the editor doesn't feel the need to edit the currency pages of all other majors that have declined in tandem with the Canadian dollar (relative to the US dollar), nor does he feel the need to mention the Canadian dollar's current increasing forex value relative to a number of non-US currencies (this is an important point)! Perhaps this says more about the Canadian penchant for obsessively comparing anything Canadian to anything American while bizarrely discounting other non-American comparisons as if they don't exist. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's guidelines, I'd like to achieve some form of consensus before allowing bold edits to this article WP:BRD. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am Canadian and I read about the dollar every week in the newspaper. I know nothing about the currency of other countries so why would I edit those? How can we achieve consensus? I add a section about the devaluation of the currency, with full citations, and you delete it. If other editors who have been involved in this topic would get involved in this debate, that would be useful. But they are not doing so.

How would I know if you are Canadian or not? Peter K Burian (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what my nationality is! You have to engage here before making bold edits to the article. Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). We achieve consensus by hearing from more editors. Until then, you cannot make unilateral changes to the article as you see fit! WP:BRD Why are you not understanding this? NorthernFactoid (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Canadian dollar's value has been plummeting for 18 months. That is a significant part of this topic. I simply added that information, with reliable citations. You keep deleting them. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You are a Misplaced Pages editor as am I. I have as much right to edit this article, adding valid information supported by citations, as anyone does. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Critically reread the entirety of my initial statement. You are invited — read the guidelines: Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante) WP:BRD — to find consensus and then make bold edits! Not the other way around. Discuss first, and edit after. Do not edit as you see fit, and try to impose your will after because other editors do not share your logic. It doesn't work like that! I am happy to engage with you constructively but only after the article has been returned to its status quo ante from which changes can be made in consensus. It's true everyone is invited to contribute, but Misplaced Pages isn't a free-for-all. Certain standards and guidelines must still be respected! Your combative edit warring has been reported. NorthernFactoid (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been adding fully substantiated, fully-cited factual information that is highly relevant to a discussion of the Canadian Dollar. I cannot understand how such content can be viewed as "opinions".e.g. My current edit (if it has not been deleted by someone for the fourth time) includes the following: Although this currency was on par with the US dollar in mid-2013, it has experienced significant devaluation since mid-2014 and was called “the perennial underperformer” by a Bank of America currency strategist in mid-January 2016. (Canadian dollar sinks below 70¢ as oil dips under $30 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/canadian-dollar-flirts-with-70-cent-mark/article28127395/ | Globe and Mail | Toronto)

AND Canada's economy is also based on manufacturing and a low dollar may help to stimulate exports to countries such as the U.S. with strong currencies, but there has not yet been much evidence of this potential benefit. An analysis in the Toronto Star indicates, "it’s unclear whether the low loonie will be able to stimulate the export sector as it has in the past. There has been a fundamental shift in the dynamics of that crucial industry due to the closure of 10,000 export-oriented businesses in the past decade alone." (The dollar closed at 69.71 cents U.S. Wednesday putting pressure on Ottawa to dig deep into its economic stimulus tool kit http://www.thestar.com/business/2016/01/13/loonie-closes-below-70-cents-us-for-first-time-in-nearly-13-years.html |Toronto Star)Peter K Burian (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention the Canadian dollar's current value, but I generally agree with NorthernFactoid. It seems unnecessary to mention any value in the lead when there's an entire section already committed to value. Peter K Burian does seem to struggle with the idea of consensus building before bold editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.8.206 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You would have much higher credibility if you were not totally anonymous. Since the lede raves about this currency and its desirability, I feel that a brief mention of the devaluation - which has been a huge issue in the news media, around the world - is necessary and relevant. (MOST other currencies have not crashed in the past 18 months, so value is of minimal interest. However, the Canadian dollar is at at 13 year low, having plummeted in value, so this is a significant issue in this article). Hence, I added back a much shorter comment about the devaluation. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People disagree with you Peter K Burian. I now completely agree with NorthernFactoid on your taking issue with consensus building. I don't think the lead raves about this currency at all. It presents the facts as are, no different from any other currency page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.8.206 (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You're assuming the Canadian dollar is less desirable. This is your opinion. I've looked at the current sources and believe the lead is well-sourced to support it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.8.206 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People disagree with me? Who are the plural people? Again, I say your comments would be more credible if they were signed. I checked the TALK page for 204.239.8.206 and it shows no activity at all on Misplaced Pages for four years. And it is basically anonymous: 204.239.8.206 "This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users."

Then, suddenly, 204.239.8.206 is active for only a single article on Jan. 14, Canadian Dollar. History: editing of only a single article in 2011 Macintosh startup, none in 2012, none in 2013, none in 2014, none in 2015 and never an edit on Canadian Dollar ... ‎until suddenly it is editing this one, starting only today, during the debate I am having with NorthernFactoid and happening to agree with him. Quite a coincidence? Interesting.

Yes, the lead was well sourced before I added a bit about the major devaluation, but primarily with 2014 and older articles. Why was there not a singe article cited that mentioned the plummeting value over 18 full months? I suggest reading this article: Canadian dollar will drop to 59 cents US in 2016, Macquarie forecasts Canadian Broadcasting Corporation http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/macquarie-loonie-forecast-1.3401644 Jan 13, 2016 Peter K Burian (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "forecast" is to "predict or estimate." Judging by the comments here, I think that's the point other editors are trying to make Peter K Burian. You're attempting to use "predictions or estimates" as facts, and that's wrong. So go ahead and add me to the editors who disagree with you. This is a good example of why forecasts aren't fact: http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/07/08/loonie_will_return_to_parity_by_end_of_2014_cibc.html Unsigned comments are still valid comments. 50.92.134.24 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallelujah! I don’t think I’ve come across another editor on Misplaced Pages as unworldly as Peter K Burian. This guy is as pigheaded as they come! Of course, if anyone disagrees with him they’re bullies and in the wrong. 'However, the Canadian dollar is at at 13 year low, having plummeted in value, so this is a significant issue in this article'. Wrong! This article isn’t about the Canadian dollar’s value, it’s about the Canadian dollar! Other currencies haven’t ‘crashed’? The one-year performance of CAD exceeds that (i.e. the Canadian dollar has performed better) of the Brazilian real, euro, the Australian and New Zealand dollars, the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone, the Japanese yen etc. I can’t even have a rational discussion with this numpty. Among other unfounded assumptions, he wants to make forex value central to this article based on his opinion and the opinion of two currency traders (it doesn’t matter if they’re sourced, opinion is still opinion); it’s beyond bizarre: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/032415/worst-performing-currencies-2015.asp

And again, there’s no reason for a subsection called ‘declining value’ when there's a ‘value’ section that already implies increases and decreases (i.e. values go up and down constantly). There was no subsection called ‘increasing value’ when the dollar gained and exceeded parity in US dollar terms, so why is it necessary to have a subsection devoted to ‘declining value’ and sourced using opinionated theoretical currency forecasts that clearly violate guidelines on sourcing (not to mention common sense)? The user doesn’t understand forex and economics though; this is the root of the problem. Unfortunately, he probably votes too.

P.S. Peter K Burian, are you accusing me of sock puppetry because someone else only partially agrees with me but not you? How juvenile! That’s a very serious allegation, and actually the allegation violates even more Misplaced Pages guidelines WP:NOASSUMESOCK! But what do you care about guidelines? Guidelines don’t mean anything to you. Anonymous entries are still valid, nimrod! That’s what Misplaced Pages is all about! NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoration to original form

I have restored the article to its original form. Further to points above, especially on sourcing WP:QUESTIONABLE and bold editing WP:BRD issues, the ‘Declining Value’ subsection is superfluous (i.e. the ‘Value’ section already mentions historical fluctuations in forex value). A 'Declining Value' subsection also presents the need for an ‘Increasing Value’ subsection, as forex values are relative and constantly fluctuating. This means that even if a currency hits a 15-year low one day, but starts to rise again the next, the currency is rightly said to be ‘increasing’ in value. A ‘Declining Value’ subsection is therefore no longer relevant. Other editors have also tried in vain to caution Peter K Burian with respect to his similar line of reasoning on other articles , yet he continues to ignore the guidelines and attempts to impose his way or the highway. I feel mentioning the Canadian dollar’s all-time highs and lows is both sufficient and appropriate given the precedent of other Misplaced Pages currency pages. There’s no need to mention daily forex rates as Misplaced Pages isn’t a newspaper WP:NOTNP & WP:RECENTISM. Besides, forex rates can already be seen in the context of the ‘current exchange rates’ section. The Canadian dollar’s value is not the article’s central theme! If other editors disagree or have anything more to add to this discussion, please discuss here before boldly changing the article from its original form. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)