User talk:Tokisaki Kurumi/Archive 1

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cancer into Aging-associated diseases. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand.--$F(\omega )$ =$\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }$ $f(t)e^{-j\omega t}dt$ 07:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

June 12

As to your reversion to include the quote from Hal Varian in the Social Cost of Carbon is frin an article that concludes with an opion; it is therefore not appropriate for a non-biased treatment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@GoatGod: I agree the words in this article might not be appropriate, but are you sure that the words in this article reflect opinion but not fact? As far as I can see, Hal Varian is a quite notable economist and this is from The New York Times(Wikipedia:NYT).--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 07:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I am glad that you have brought this up. I am an economist as well and I am in the process of doing a good deal of research on time discounting environmental damage: economists are always stating an opinion where they argue for or against a time discount. Even though it is probable that the majority of economists agree that there should be a time discount rate, and many economists disagree that there should be one at all, almost universally agree that a time discount is a normative value. Its being a normative value means that it is based only on a subjective moral opinion, not on an "economic" fact or reality. This opinion holds that current generations are more valuable than are future ones: "We matter more than our kids" is the subtext of the positive time discount argument. And it is rather absurd, given that we are mostly concerned about global climate change for the sake of future generations to suddenly argue that their welfare matters less. Evidence that a time discount is an opinion is that fact that essentially all economists agree that there is no "right" rate of time discount that is discoverable.

So economists, where they argue for a time discount rate, are simply stating their opinion. The "Paradoxical and... nonsensical results" of a zero-time discount that Hal Varian refers to does not apply to environmental damage; these results are a carry-over from a different issue in economics: the attempt to determine how much society should best save vs. consume. This issue has nothing to do with Integrated Assessment Models or any other calculations attempting to determine the rate of compensation for negative market externalities, such as environmental damage (external to the market). Unfortunately, and most notably, William Nordhaus has unethically acted as if a time discount is a scientific fact and not a matter of opinion. Many have fallen victim to this pseudoscience. I am currently writing a paper on time discounting environmental damage functions–it is a complex issue, but a very few economists have, using their reputations and the language of economics, have led a lot of the public, including established scientists and political leaders to believe that their opinions are scientific fact.

I actually did originally assume that the New York Times article in question was an opinion piece because it so clearly stated an opinion concerning a controversial topic and was shocked to learn that you are correct, it is not an opinion piece: this is emblematic of how deep the false belief that established economists’ opinions are hard fact has cut. Economics is made up at least a dozen established schools of thought, who at times vehemently disagree with each other, and even within these schools there is disagreement. Few if any policy recommendations can said to be factually true or false. There may be facts that are used to argue for them, but the ultimate policy recommendation is pretty much always going to be an opinion, so beware of an economist who tries to tell you that their point of view is a factual truth. Make sure that it makes sense to you personally.

BTW, I see why you included the quote from Varian it did seem to be a good representation of the controversy, it is however, weighted in the very falsehoods that lead to his conclusion. Thanks for getting back to me: keep up the good work!— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC).

@GoatGod: Sound reasonable, would you mind giving me some sources to reflect that? I will attribute that to him in the article now, but I think it will be better if you could list a source here or in the article. Also, don't forget to sign your post in the talk pages, it's very easy, just use ~~~~ after you finishing your words. --ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 08:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. I used double triangle bracks to enclose the topic in question and singel triangle brackets to indicate my own words. The rest should be either quotation or citation. Let me know if you have any questions.

<<Lists of Economists who disagree with the appropriateness of a positive time discount rate (i.e. demonstrating that the use or not of a time discount rate is an opinion among economists and others)>>

“Occasionally there have been those who have voiced discomfort with [a positive time discount rate], especially those seeking to orient public policy towards the future. Ramsey [1928], while acknowledging that private agents discount the future, argued that it was “ethically indefensible” for the government to do so. Pigou [1952], Allais [1947], and Solow [1974] have expressed similar views.” (From the abstract, p.1-2) <See article for recited sources.>

Caplin, A. and Leahy, J. (2001). The Social Discount Rate. Institute for Empirical Economics, Discussion Paper 137, The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

<Robert Solow, A.C. Pigou, Frank Ramsey, Roy Harrod, and Tjalling Koopmans all opposed a positive rate of time discount.>

<see p. 95-96 of the cited article for the supporting quote and the references to the works of the economists in which they voice there opposition to a positive rate of time discount.>

Arrow, K. (1999). Inter-Generational Equity and the Rate of Discount in Long-Term Social Investment. Contemporary Economic Issues, p.89-102 “Many—but not all—of the authors of this article agree with Frank Ramsey (Ramsey 1928) that it is ethically indefensible to discount the utility of future generations, except possibly to account for the fact that these generations may not exist.” (p.152) https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/rev_environ_econ_policy-2014-arrow-145-63_0.pdf

<<On the normative nature of a time discount rate:>>

“The topic of discounting is one that has been the subject of deep and careful analysis by economists over the past century. The basic impulse of many was to look for some “positive” measure, or revealed preference, that could be used to pin down the appropriate discount rate for policy-making. Without getting into the details of this discussion, suffice it to say that this approach has been subjected to powerful criticism.[5] This has given rise to widespread acceptance of the view, articulated by Kenneth Arrow among others, that the choice of a discount rate is fundamentally a “moral” choice.[6]”

[5] For a summary, see Tyler Cowen and Derek Parfit, “Against the Social Discount Rate.” In Peter Laslett and James Fishkin, eds, Philosophy, Politics, and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 151.

[6] Kenneth Arrow, “Intergenerational Equity and the Rate of Discount in Long-Term Social Investment,” iea World Congress presentation (Dec, 1995) (http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/ workp/swp97005.pdf, accessed Jan. 21, 2013).

<You can go to some of the original sources for more evidence that time discounting is a normative choice, at least in the minds of economists.>

“A social time preference function assigns current values to future consumptions: it is a normative function reflecting society's evaluation of the relative desirability of consumption at different points in time.” (P.361)

Feldstein, M. (1964). The Social Time Preference Discount Rate in Cost Benefit Analysis. The Economic Journal, 74(294), 360-379. doi:10.2307/2228484

“Are the numbers taken in the Review to reflect the two ethical parameters compelling.? I have little problem with the figure of 0. 1 per cent a year the authors have chosen for the rate of pure time/risk-of-extinction discount (delta) -although many economists would think otherwise. But the figure they have adopted for eta - the ethical parameter reflecting inequality and risk in human well-being – is deeply unsatisfactory to me.” (P.6)

Dasgupta, P. (2007, January). Commentary: the Stern Review's economics of climate change. National Institute Economic Review 199. http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/faculty/garvie/econ443/debate/dasgupta%20commentary%20stern%20review.pdf

<<The “Paradox of the indefinitely postponed splurge” was only argued to apply to saving-consumption choices>>

“[To explain the “Paradox of the indefinitely postponed splurge” first suggested by Tjaling Koopmans in 1960 and 1965, i]magine initially that output consist of a constant stream of completely perishable goods. There can be no investment by definition. Now imagine that an investment opportunity occurs, available only to the first generation. For each unit sacrificed by them, a perpetual stream of α per unit is generated. If there were no time preference, what would the optimal solution be? Each unit sacrificed would yield a finite utility loss to the first generation, but to compensate, there would be a gain, however small, to each of an infinity of generations. Thus any [any is italicized] sacrifice by the first generation is good.”

Arrow, K. (1999). Inter-Generational Equity and the Rate of Discount in Long-Term Social Investment. Contemporary Economic Issues, p.89-102 P.96

Koopmans, T. (1960). Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience. Econometrica, 28(2), 287-309. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907722

Koopmans, T. (1965) On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth. Paper presented at the Vatican Study Week on the Econometric Approach to Development Planning, Rome, Pontifical Academy of Science, 7–13 October, pp. 225–300.

<It is clear from this that the “Koopman’s Paradox” was formulated only as an application to savings not as the finite restrictions on consumption implied by a social cost of carbon or other environmentally destructive activity whose cost is not included in market prices.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 13:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC).

@GoatGod: Thanks for your hard work! I see, and maybe we could improve this article's quality together? Eh, from my point of view, normally other experienced editors will not directly (or I could say "violently"?) remove something but instead they will point out directly why it's fringe (like you did here, but with some very extraordinary sources and shorter sentences in the edit summary, or mass discussions in the article's talkpage) and then remove them, so I know it might be a little inappropriate here, but I do think if you could learn a little bit more about how Wikipedia works, you could become a really good editor. Anyway, thank you again for searching these sources and letting me learn. Happy editing!--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it would better to leave some more words here. Normally we could not use sources to support what an editor try to infer, no, Wikipedia does not work like that, you have to let it directly support the words you add.(Yes, sometimes we have to write the con-opinion, otherwise we could not meet the standard of an encyclopedia) It might be confusing for you, but imagine if everyone try to infer something and add them to the article, sooner or later the Mathematics article will become a mess. So, I think the deduction work belongs to the academic communities, Wikipedia could only reflect the deduction, but not to do the deduction. You could also view Wikipedia:VNT and Wikipedia:OR for more.--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I understood the first paragraph: couldn't make heads or tales of the second. Sorry. Alos, if you accuse somebody of doing something or not, please give examples. Use of inference; could you give an example of that? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@GoatGod: Here is an example from Wikipedia:SYNTH: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." Imagine both the first part and the second part are independently correctly sourced, but if there is no source to infer the relationship between two facts, it might not be appropriate (Of course you could list the facts in a due weight if they are really relevant, but we may not use conjunctions). Also, it's also not recommended to do like "A, therefore B (but without source saying A could imply B), so C is incompatible with B" in the article. I know that the current article we are discussing might not be good, but we have to look twice before we leap. Okay, I know I have to answer two questions now. First, things like these are a trend, not a firm rule, you could easily find many sentences in Wikipedia like this but not removed, some of them might violate the rule, others might just be acceptable, so when in doubt and intend to do some actions, use edit summary and talkpage to inform other editors. Second, I understand this sentence might be Okay for any thesis or publication outside the Wikipedia, but it's not proper in Wikipedia, this is partly due to not all Wikipedians are professional in some specific areas. From my point of view, I regard this as a compromise between professions and publics (I regard Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:FRINGE as part of that, too).--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 17:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Your edit to Draft:Red Purge has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi Tokisaki Kurumi,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 02:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Red Purge has been accepted

Red Purge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 14:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"as it is also argued that Mussolini joined Socialist Party in early years."

you do not need to refer to Mussolini's "early years", was not Nazi's full name national SOCIALISM? Do you then argue that Nazi is German New LEFT? I do not know whether you have met Gan in person or how much you actually know about him and his ideas, if you think someone advocating for traditional classics (including Confucianism) education is "left", "new left", "Maoist", then I suggest you read more about Mao on education and his practices during the cultural revolution Lytstoriock (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The only evidence, though still controversial, to argue that he is "left" is the paper on liberalism (guizude haishi pingminde). There are different interpretation on this paper. Apart from this single article, all evidence, including countless interviews with him inexplicitly suggests that he is conservative.  Lytstoriock (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me also inform you a detail about Gan. He was a classmate of Liu Xiaofeng at PKU when studying philosophy and they maintained friends since then. You can find they co-edited series of translations and their co-authored preface for the series in which they self-identified themselves at "Straussian". Lytstoriock (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lytstoriock: Sorry I was in a busy just now. So, I do not think we could overrule scholars' opinions as it might or might not the case. Yes since scholars give an independent term as "Straussian", to describe his ideology, but till now there is no "Ganyangism". See also [1], [2]. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 11:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The first article should be dismissed as it is not even peer-reviewed, though I have a sort of tie with its author in reality and CEU is a good university (he also has a person blog where he regularly posts articles, non-peer-reviewed). The second represents ONE view in academia. Debate in academia is common. It should be stated that in academia there are opposite views on Gan. Lytstoriock (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the second paper, I cannot find any info about its first author "Shi Anshu". Lytstoriock (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lytstoriock: If there is, please show me that scholars are insisting he is not a New Left instead of insisting he is a Confucian. Also I do not think that someone could not find any information about first author is a valid reason since it is published by reliable academic source. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

My argument has never been that Gan is a CONFUCIAN though he indeed identified himself with this label (so-called "Confucian socialist"), instead, my argument is that Gan is a CONSERVATIVE (especially inspired by L. Strauss and S. P. Huntington). In this regard, there have been a lot of sources indicating how he was practicing A. Bloom's emphasis on classics, social conservatism, cultural conservatism, etc. Lytstoriock (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources below. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, let us continue:

• Narrating a Fantasmatic Unity: On the Contemporary Sinophone Discourse of China's Civilizational Subjectivity: During the heated debate between the New Left and liberalism, Gan joined the New Left camp and was labeled as one of its four leading representatives (the other three being Wang Hui, Wang Shaoguang and Cui Zhiyuan). Like many other figures in the group, Gan Yang himself, though, resents the "New Left" label. He preferred instead the label "liberal left".
• MATTHEW DEAN (AGI16) ON PROFESSOR GAN YANG, THE LIBERAL ARTS, AND CHINA: Professor Gan is widely recognized as a member of the Chinese New Left, a school of political thought that criticizes capitalism and various elements of Chinese economic reform. Dean points out in his translation that professor Gan himself has said, regarding the New Left, “I don’t know what I am, I’m just Chinese.”
• The Most Fashionable and the Most Relevant: A Review of Contemporary Chinese Political Philosophy: By that time he was already known as one of the most important leaders of the New Left, a label he never truly accepted, preferring the term Liberal Left. And then, in 2002, he wrote a very long introduction to the Chinese version of Leo Strauss’s Natural Right and History, since which he has been regarded by most Chinese scholars as a conservative. Once again, I doubt that he would accept such a label.

ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The second source is not reliable, but I would add the first and the third to Gan Yang. They show the divergency between how he self-identified and how the others identified him. Lytstoriock (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So I think it does not make sense to remove the New Left label of him just because he does not consent it himself. Do you agree now? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of websites blocked in mainland China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)