Talk:Protectionism/Archives/2017

The self-published ramblings of Ian Fletcher don't belong in Wikipedia articles

So, having removed Ian Fletcher's[1] self-published works from 'Free trade debate'[2] and 'Comparative advantage' last year, we now have a new account (created today) that has added Fletcher's unscientific fringe ramblings self-published on a Huffington Post blog. Please remove this text[3]. The account that added the text falsely claimed that Fletcher is a PhD in econ (no evidence for that) and then claimed that Fletcher's lobbying work makes him an authority[4]. This guy is deeply ignorant about economics, has no credentials and has published no peer-reviewed publications. The guy is no authority on economics and should never be cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the new content added by new user Nebere (who has edited this page only), as S‎nooganssnoogans has Nebere, welcome to Wikipedia - when an editor objects to your content on policy-based grounds, and removes it, the usual custom around here is to go to the article talk page (this page) to discuss, and to re-insert the text if you get consensus (but not otherwise).

My objections to this material are pretty unsurprising:

1. We have many good sources, like peer-reviewed economics journals and books published by academic presses or respected publishing houses. We have no need to rely on random HuffPo "contributor blog" posts.
2. Such "contributor blog" posts are primary sources and should be used with caution. It should be noted that there's little indication that Huffington Post exercises much editorial control over what its opinion contributors blog about.
3. There is no indication that Fletcher is a recognized authority on economics generally or trade in particular. He's not an academic economist. Nor is it clear whether he had a Ph.D.
4. I have serious undue weight concerns in light of #1-#3.
5. Even if this usable, it would have to be directly attributed to Fletcher in text. A vague attribution to "Advocates of protectionism" is, I believe, problematic here because Fletcher's views may be idiosyncratic even as to other protectionists.

So we should exclude this. --Neutrality^talk 22:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Extremely iffy text keeps getting edit-warred into the article

I explain my reasons in the edit summaries in more depth but in short: (i) one direct quote fails verification, (ii) Chang and Reinert are cited as making a particular claim but this claim isn't supported by any sources - the editor cites an article in a rubbish journal which neither mentions Chang nor Reinert and the editor previously cited an article by Chang which didn't make the claim. The editor has so far made extremely dubious edits and I think we really need better verification of the accuracy of the content that he/she adds. This is literally one of the core topics in economics, so it shouldn't be hard to find multiple reliable sources. We shouldn't be satisfied with the recent edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Misleading text on IGM survey

One user has repeatedly changed the text "there is a broad consensus among economists" into "There is a broad consensus among economists of IGM Forum, a research center at the University of Chicago". This misleads readers into thinking there is a consensus among economists of a particular think tank, which also sounds bizarre. The economists don't work at IGM Forum, they are surveyed by the IGM Forum. The IGM Forum surveys are commonly described as fair depictions of where economists stand on issues, see for instance this study in one of the top political science journals[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have changed it back. Rhizz9, please don't make the same edit again without consensus here. The sources clearly and directly indicate that this is a field-wide consensus; it's demonstrated by the IGM Forum results (which reflect consensus), but it's not limited to the IGM Forum. And as Snoog. writes, "economists of IGM Forum" doesn't make any sense. Neutrality^talk 13:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding on definition

I would like to add the following text in the definition

They (protectionists) argue that a country don't thrive through economic specialization and free importation of goods at low price, but rather through interventionist and protectionist economic policies aimed at the development, diversification and preservation of the industry.They support like Bairoch that "it 's economic growth that leads to the development of foreign trade and not the reverse" Phenomena affecting the domestic production as a trade deficit or the dutch disease are considered destructive for a country's development. So they don't consider that free-trade is mutually beneficial to partners, and implies enrichment for both but rather as a zero-sum game: countries with trade deficit (especially in industrial sector) lose in wealth, and those with surpluse are winners.

(Nebere (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Nebere)

A random mish-mash of politicians, primary sources and heterodox economists published in iffy outlets =/= lede-worthy

It's very simple: there is abundant coverage of trade and protectionism in economics. There's an abundance of RS that can be cited. There is zero reason why we should be content with citing a mish-mash of politicians in primary sources and the thoughts of fringe economists in crap journals and working papers in the lede. A second problem is that the bulk of the lede is now devoted to the fringe view that protectionism is good whereas there is a broad consensus in economics that it isn't. A third problem is that this borders on original research: there's extensive sourcing to primary sources, and not to lit reviews, textbooks or assessments by economists in high-quality publications. Again, this is not some obscure topic. It should not be difficult to demonstrate notability and find good sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I support a removal of the poorly sourced heterodox material from the lead. LK (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

answer

I describe clearly that it is the point of view of protectionist economists. And Ha-Joon Chang and Reinert are references among protectionist economists, therefore their point of view is representative. I do not think you are legitimate to call them "marginal". Nebere (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)nebere

Please provide reliable secondary sources that they are representative among economists who favor protectionism. The point is moot though, because it's already been established that there is a broad consensus against protectionism among economists, and thus we should not be devoting the bulk of the lede to proponents of the fringe view that protectionism is good. That the sourcing is abysmal is a secondary problem. There are so many problems with your edits that resolving one of them (something which you haven't even done), still leaves other problems that make the content unacceptable. Also, can you please stop creating new sections on the talk page, and instead continue to discuss this in the correct section. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if you'd stop editing Wikipedia momentarily if you don't understand how any of it works and editors are pointing out that you're violating numerous policies with your edits? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not to say that protectionism is good but just to explain what it is. Nebere (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)nebere

And your text in the lede does a horrible job of it: it's poorly written, uses abysmal sourcing, presents the views of random figures as authoritative, and misleads readers into thinking protectionism is not a fringe theory among economists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I describe clearly that it is the point of view of protectionist economists, not all economists. Moreover, you say that the protectionist point of view is marginal, so we must not talk about it and even censure it. You admit that your aim is to say that protectionism is bad and that free trade is good. This completely disqualifies you. Nebere (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)nebere

Moreover, why create this theme on wikipedia if we can not talk about it and develop itNebere (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)nebere

This is pointless. You have serious reading comprehension problems, and these discussions go nowhere. You jump from one point to another, and nothing seems to matter. "I describe clearly that it is the point of view of protectionist economists, not all economists" - You said that the people you were citing were authoritative for protectionists but you have provided no reliable sourcing for that. "you say that the protectionist point of view is marginal, so we must not talk about it and even censure it." - No, I didn't. I have repeatedly and as clearly as I can said that (i) all content must be reliably sourced, (ii) due weight, and (iii) not violate WP:FRINGE. If the views of protectionists can be briefly summarized, reliably sourced, and their fringe status noted, I would have no problem with it in the lede. What I do have a problem with is three quarters of the lede being devoted to a random mish-mash of fringe figures, synthesis, and abysmal sources. "your aim is to say that protectionism is bad and that free trade is good. This completely disqualifies you" - My aim here is to make sure that the content on Wikipedia reflects Wiki policy. That means that the content in this article should be reliably sourced, and of due weight. Some of my edits to this article has noted that protectionism can be valid in certain circumstances, and that free trade has downsides for some groups. Unlike you, I did substantiate my text with reliable sources. "why create this theme on wikipedia if we can not talk about it and develop it" - This article is not your sandbox. We don't leave rubbish text up just because someone wants to fix it later. We certainly don't do it to ledes. Your interactions on the talk page, your failure to cite Wiki policy and your constant reverts of material that has been challenged in some form or another by at least three editors suggests that you have zero interest in building this Wikipedia article with others. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Nebere, I left a note on your user talk page about this. I agree with Snooganssnoogans here: the text that you put in the lead section doesn't summarize the article properly (a function of the lead section), and did not have great sources (this, for example, is a grad student's opinion column that mentions "trade protection" only once, in passing — not a great source when we have thousands of in-depth pieces out there). Neutrality^talk 03:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The "Arguments for" and "Arguments against" sections should be replaced with one section: "Impact"

"Arguments for" and "Arguments against" sections are confusing, and I have found myself struggling to decide where to put research on the effects of protectionism. I don't have time to go through the article at the moment, but I think this is something we should do. We would then create subsections within "Impact", such as "Growth", "Living standards", "Industries", "Politics" etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

American vs foreign opinion

I would like to point out that several countries don't apply free trade and consider the trade balance as an important factor:

Some have said that China pursues a mercantilist economic policy. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-chinese-mercantilism/ http://www.industryweek.com/public-policy/chinas-economic-mercantilism http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-business/u-s-tech-group-urges-global-action-against-chinese-mercantilism-idUSKBN16N0YJ

while, Russia pursues a policy based on protectionism http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp according to which international trade is not a "win-win" game but a zero-sum game: surplus countries get richer at the expense of deficit countries. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-protectionism/russia-was-most-protectionist-nation-in-2013-study-idUSBRE9BT0GP20131230 http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/study-russia-insulated-further-sanctions-import-substitution-success/ri20491 https://www.rbth.com/business/2017/02/09/food-import-substitution-turns-out-to-be-extremely-profitable_699158 https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2017/03/made-russia-made-arctic https://www.ft.com/content/422a8252-2443-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16?mhq5j=e7

So, I would argue that the sentence:"There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth"

could be reworded as:"In United States, There is a broad consensus ..."

Furthermore, leading economists advise European country to implement protectionist measures:

Joseph Stiglitz advises the country of the euro zone to set up import licences (a protectionist measure) to fight against their trade deficits with Germany, which he says destroy their economies. http://lahcenbounadereconomics.blogspot.fr/2016/12/a-critical-issue-adressed-to-joseph.html https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/05/reform-euro-or-bin-it-greece-germany https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/books/review/euro-joseph-e-stiglitz.html?_r=0

Maurice Allais denounces free trade or the deregulation of competition in the global labor market and thinks reasoned protectionism between countries with very different incomes is necessary. http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2010/10/11/deces-de-maurice-allais-prix-nobel-liberal-et-protectionniste_685598 http://www.soyons-lucides.fr/documents/maurice_allais-contre_les_tabous_indiscutes.pdf

Shharp (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither the existing sources in the article nor the sources that you bring to bear above contradict that there is a broad consensus among economists (American or otherwise). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The economic doctrine applied by these countries is totally contrary to the United States. Where's the consensus? there is no global consensus in the world Shharp (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The US government doesnt accept climate change =/= "US climate scientists no longer accept climate change".

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't change the sentence about "economists" but I quote the rest of the text that is sourced

Shharp (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You have no right to arbitrarily suppress the work of others without consensus.This flies in the face of the RS .

Shharp (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree to put economists' opinions and countries' economic practices in another section: Impact

Shharp (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

the text is properly written, well sourced, and in the right section

Shharp (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Protectionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322063511/http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/tradingnation/chap1.pdf to http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/tradingnation/chap1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This article

It appears this article is being washed in bias from the top. A good example from the lead, "However, they hurt consumers in general". What does that even mean? Reducing that statement down to "Protectionism is bad" bias. A list of policies is not that useful. It includes more bias with "protect" in quotes. Another says "However,...not effective", too many "seen as" and more "helping", with few citations. I believe there are too many highly selective quotations as well. It would be likely that libertarians edit to diminish the idea of protectionism. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced. Your preference for pseudoscience and unfamiliarity with economics does not mean that you can put a BS tag on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurt refers to pain. This is an economics article, not a medical or anatomy one. The relevant term is perhaps economic loss. 11 out of 14 dot points have no citations at all, disproving your claim. There is no need for dot points in the first place. We want nice paragraphs of prose. User:Snooganssnoogans fails to assume good faith and miraculously is aware of my familiarity with the topic. Lets work together to improve this article. Look at the first sentence in the growth section. It "hurt" but we don't know by how much. Huh? If you knew it hurt then you would now by how much. That section is just a list of selected quotations. Unacceptable. We can see the Development World section start by promoting the discredited trickle down theory and then pushes free trade, both off-topic to protectionism. Shall I continue? This article is a very weak C class. Its not standing up to scrutiny. The neutrality template belongs. This article is being undermined. This is what is ruining this website. More and more, obvious all over the place. Solutions desperately needed. Hello... anyone there to help save Wikipedia? - Shiftchange (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing about 'trickle down' in the 'developing world' section - that you seem to think it has anything to do with 'trickle down' economics suggests that you don't understand the concepts and literature in the article. The article already has the 'needs additional citations for verification' tag, which is applicable in particular to the 'protectionist policies' sub-section. My concerns were chiefly with you labelling the whole article with a 'neutrality' tag and then complaining about the contents of the lede (which have absolutely no neutrality problems). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you will find the lead problematic. It doesn't explain notablity. What is so important or remarkable about protectionism? The lead doesn't tell me what it is or why this matters but instead mentions what the outcome of it is and how it is viewed. This is clearly an indication of a lack of neutrality. You are not thinking about the subject objectively enough. Please focus on the points I just made and consider that you are letting a bias dominate. Why are we telling our readers how protectionsm is "seen as" instead of telling them its characteristics. The answer is once again, bias. Policies seek outcomes or specific results but instead this article tell us what it does or doesn't do according to others attributions. "ripple effect throughout the economy" equates to trickle down to me. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice the selective response to the concerns I mentioned. Very telling for bias. Assertions that the content is good and that there are enough references when clearly, no. This editor is stopping me from continuing to work on this article. I am reluctant to devote effort to it, now. Maybe they want to own it. All I want to do is to keep improving it. This is indicative of the same problem all over the site. Error avalanche. Consensus is not emerging naturally, the old model is broken. We need an invisible hand to provide the mechanism that guards against these faults. As the Gatekeeping gets worse, tolerance for this will decrease and the exit of active users with increase. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to say looking at this page too I have to say I stand with Shiftchange. this page is totally bias. it seems like wikipeaida has lots of right wingers editing on it. can somebody fix this page. Max.Moore (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)