Talk:Austrian business cycle theory/Archives/2012/May

Bias
Perhaps "weasel" is not the correct term. However, the implication of the article saying "Despite mainstream findings of evidence to the contrary, proponents of the theory conclude..." is that the theory is incorrect. Really, what is the point of inserting a quick mention of its unpopularity (even though it's already mentioned previously in the article) right before the conclusion of proponents? We've already been told it's unpopular. This is just a cheap shot. Yes, it's true that it's unpopular, but that doesn't mean it ought to be mentioned (again) in the MIDDLE of an explanation of the theory. The title of the subsection is "assertions", so it should be limited to that. There's no plausible case of people being confused about whether or not the theory is unpopular when reading that section because it's mentioned early in the article ("The Austrian explanation of the business cycle differs significantly from the mainstream understanding of business cycles, and is generally rejected by mainstream economists.") and there's a criticism section as well ("According to most mainstream economists, the Austrian business cycle theory is incorrect").

Also, I take issue with the word "findings". The word "findings" implies that it's a fact that the theory is false. Furthermore, even if we interpret this as just a conclusion based off of evidence instead of as a fact, many of the sources claiming to have "findings" of the theory being false rely exclusively or almost exclusively on empirical evidence, and basing conclusions of economic theory in this way is controversial to say the least. Byelf2007 (talk) 28 April 2012


 * RE: "Despite mainstream findings of evidence to the contrary"
 * WP:NPOV is quite clear on contrasting fringe theories against the majority view, and is similarly clear on writing from the minority perspective. Inserting that blurb serves the demands of WP:NPOV, while removing it gains nothing.  The choice is obvious.  Keep the short note. 23:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * RE: "findings"
 * I don't care to state an opinion either way.  BigK HeX(talk) 23:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "quite clear on contrasting fringe theories..."


 * For the third or fourth time, ABCT is NOT a "fringe" theory, as in a "superminority" theory, as in comparable with flat Earth or Holocaust/Moon Landing denial. I've won this debate against you several times now. I don't think I need to repeat the same arguments over and over again, which you've repeatedly given up on taking issue with.


 * I'm happy to have this debate. I just hope you don't use any of your old arguments like "The official examples of what constitutes a fringe theory doesn't matter", etc. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 April 2012


 * I don't care how many times you assert "ABCT is not a fringe theory". Or how many times you choose to willfully conflate "superminority theories" with WP:FRINGE. None of that changes the demands of WP:NPOV.
 * The issue of noting the mainstream view of ABCT has been discussed and accepted. Your new edit to trash that acceptance has been rejected, and you have no consensus to keep reverting it in.  You ARE edit warring.  The approach is BRD.  Not BRDR.    BigK HeX(talk) 17:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "None of that changes the demands of WP:NPOV" I didn't say it did. You were the one who said ABCT is "fringe". I'm pointing out that the official examples of what constitutes a fringe theory make it clear that ABCT is not fringe, and that therefore it should not be treated as such.


 * "The issue of noting the mainstream view of ABCT has been discussed and accepted." Does that mean I'm not entitled to take issue with it?


 * "you have no consensus to keep reverting it" Then I'll stop until this debate concludes. One thing I would like to point out at this time is that you did not advance any argument for keeping it in in your latest talk post (except for "we already discussed this years ago", as if that alone somehow means that the rationale for keeping it in cannot be challenged). What is your case for including it without trying to argue that ABCT is fringe? Or are you saying ABCT is fringe? Byelf2007 (talk) 29 April 2012


 * If you want to debate your odd notions of WP:FRINGE, I'm fine with discussing that with you, but this talk page doesn't seem to be the appropriate locale. We can take it to the FRINGE talk page.  BigK HeX(talk) 18:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories 18:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your argument for including the debated content is. What is it? Before, you argued that it was because ABCT is fringe. Do you still think this is the case?


 * Also, I don't have any problem with the existing explanation of what WP:FRINGE is, all I'm saying is that I don't think ABCT is an example as fringe, and, therefore, should not be regarded as such. Are you saying ABCT is fringe? If so, why? If not, what is your argument for including the debated content? Byelf2007 (talk) 29 April 2012


 * ABCT is a fringe theory. Regardless of your acquiescence on that point, I'm pretty sure no one disputes that it is clearly a minority viewpoint which varies significantly from mainstream thought.  As such, NPOV demands that the article not be written from the minority viewpoint and further demands that it always be clear how a minority viewpoint differs from the majority view.
 * As I've said, keeping the blurb, as discussed years ago on these pages, satisfies NPOV. Removing it accomplishes nothing.
 * If you want to test if consensus for that blurb has changed, feel free to do so.  BigK HeX(talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "ABCT is a fringe theory." "a minority viewpoint which varies significantly from mainstream thought"


 * Once again, you're conflating "fringe theory" with "minority viewpoint". Again, just because something is minority viewpoint doesn't mean it's fringe. Wikipedia provides examples of fringe, such as flat Earth or Holocaust/Moon Landing denial. ABCT is much more well received within the economists community than the example fringe theories with historians/scientists.


 * "NPOV demands that the article not be written from the minority viewpoint". How would eliminating the debated content make the article written from a minority viewpoint? Once again, you're just making assertions without argumentation.


 * "further demands that it always be clear how a minority viewpoint differs from the majority view". That's already explained in the Criticisms section. It's not like someone reading the article isn't able to read that section. Also, the debated content does not explain *how* it differs from the majority view, only that it *does* differ from the minority view. That it taken care of by the explanation of the theory itself. There's no single viewpoint explaining recessions that most economists ascribe to, so it would be difficult to explain how ABCT differs from mainstream views on recessions when mainstream views on recession are varied and agree/disagree with ABCT in variously respects.


 * If you wanted to list majority views on recessions and how they differ from ABCT (as opposed to specific objections by mainstream and heterodox economists which currently exists in the Criticisms section) and create a section for it, that would be good. The relevant issue is whether or not we ought to mention that ABCT is unpopular *in the middle of a section that is designated for explaining the theory when we've already said that it the lead section and already elaborated on specific objections to the theory--many from mainstream economists--in the Criticisms section*. Wikipedia policy dictates that we only do that if ABCT is fringe.


 * If you want to establish that ABCT is fringe, you can argue that it is with arguments. Asserting it is fringe without any arugmentation (once again) doesn't count, claiming that a "fringe" viewpoint and a "minority" viewpoint are, for the purposes of editing Wikipedia articles, the same, without any argumentation (once again) doesn't count, and claiming that we shouldn't write an article from a minority viewpoint without any explanation of how not eliminating the debated content means we're the article would have a minority viewpoint doesn't count either.


 * Since you still haven't advanced any arguments against the elimination of the debated content that are plausible, I'm reverting the edit. If you want to put forward arguments about why we should have the debated content included that are plausible (like why it should count as fringe, other than that it is relatively unpopular), then I am happy to consider them. Otherwise, there is no outstanding reason why I shouldn't make the revert.


 * Finally, I will reiterate that in order for content to merit inclusion, there has to be consensus for its conclusion. The debated material does not have consensus. Just because "we had consensus last year" doesn't mean that the notion of eliminating the material has to have consensus for it to be eliminated. The burden always falls on those who want inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 April 2012
 * The edit has already been justified. Years ago.  You haven't shown that anything has changed with that. 00:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's my response to your unsigned comment


 * There was *a justification* for the edit, years ago, which you *haven't explained to me*, and I *haven't claimed that this thing year ago didn't happen*. I will, again, reiterate, that just because a decision is made about debated content doesn't mean that that decision will stand forever (otherwise, how would Wikipedia be Wikipedia?)


 * What I have explained is that I object to the debated material and I have provided arguments for this position. You can respond to them with actual arguments if you like.


 * I have argued already for why the debated content should go. If you won't respond to them with plausible arguments, then stop trying to oppose my position.


 * I will, again, reiterate that the burden is on those wanting content to explain why it should be there. You have not yet attempted this to do this (by providing plausible arguments). Therefore, even *if* you began to provide plausible arguments for the inclusion of the debated material, you still wouldn't have established consensus for the inclusion of the debated material. The current vote is 2-2 (byelf2007 + Darkstar1s & TFD + you, see Austrian School talk page). TFD has not yet responded to my last response to him/her.


 * Finally, I'll mention that you have established a pattern of (a) making an assertion in opposition to my position and then abandoning it after I challenge it and (b) simply repeating a statement without responding to my response to it. Are you trying to deliberately waste my time? If you want to actually advance your position, then read over everything I've written in this section, think about it, and make relevant and appropriate responses. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 May 2012
 * My pattern is to ignore you after you start repeating yourself, as I will not waste time doing the same. I've made my points even if you think you can dismiss them.  There has been consensus to include the blurb.  There is NO consensus for your change to it.  If you don't care to review and respect the previous consensus and you simultaneously don't care to seek a new consensus, then I certainly will oppose your effort to declare all former effort and wrangling and weeks of discussion moot at your mere whim.
 * Wikipedia works by consensus. And through recognition that consensus can change.  You have done nothing to show that the consensus has changed.   BigK HeX(talk) 03:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And, if anyone has ducked out of discussion, it appears to be you. I've clearly invited you to discuss your views about Fringe theories, and yet you've not made a single post.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories  BigK HeX(talk) 03:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "My pattern is to ignore you after you start repeating yourself" This saddens me. I've only repeated myself to the extent that you ignore my arguments against your case. As in "I'm reminding you that you're not addressing my arguments, so here's the argument again". You, however, are the one repeating arguments *without addressing my responses*.


 * This is what has been happening--you make an argument, I respond, you don't respond to my response, but instead simply reiterate your argument, then I make the same response to your argument and point out that you ignored my response. So your response to this is "Oh, look, he made the same argument again. I can pretend that I actually responded to this argument with a new argument that demonstrates why his argument is false when all I did was reiterate the point I already made without actually responding to the argument he made". Actually, you're the one who "just repeats themselves". Please read over this section if you don't believe me.


 * And if you actually think I've been "just repeating myself" then you can go over this section, quote me and you, and argue how I've been "just repeating myself" while you have been actually responding to each of my points so I don't have to reiterate any of my arguments. Would you like to do that? Or would you prefer to just claim I've been "just repeating myself"? I've actually been explaining how you're the one "just repeating" throughout this section. You're welcome to read over this section and see what I mean.


 * "I've made my points even if you think you can dismiss them." First of all, I'm not dismissing your points--I address each of them. And what points are you talking about?


 * "WP:NPOV is quite clear on contrasting fringe theories against the majority view"


 * To which I responded that a minority viewpoint (like ABCT) is not necessarily fringe. You did not respond to this, thereby abandoning your argument.


 * "ABCT is a fringe theory."


 * To which I responded that just because you *claim* that it's fringe does not make it fringe. You have to actually *explain* why you think it's fringe with *arguments*. I pointed this out in response. To which you responded by simply saying "ABCT is fringe" again, without responding to my request for an argument for why it's fringe (other than 'because it's minority)--you did provide any argumentation for why ABCT is fringe. Now, in this latest post, you've (apparently) abandoned that position as well.


 * Which just leaves 'But we already decided this before' to which I've already responded by pointing out that just because there was consensus for the edit before doesn't mean it still exists and that the site doesn't get frozen when a decision gets made, this is *Wikipedia* where decisions regarding article content can and do change. In the last post you said: "There has been consensus to include the blurb." Yes, there *was* consensus, and now there *isn't*. So you can't just say "Well, we decided this once before, so that decision will now stand forever", which, apparently you're actually arguing. I already pointed this out, but you haven't even bothered to object to this interpretation of Wikipedia (that it's actually Wikipedia where decisions about article content don't stand forever), and instead have opted to just repeat what you already said without actually responding to what I said. Just because people decided to have X occur in a Wikipedia article a year ago does not mean that X must therefore stay in the Wikipedia article forever afterwards regardless of what arguments are provided in opposition to X. Do you understand that?


 * "There is NO consensus for your change to it."


 * Once again, I don't need consensus for my position. The burden is *always* on those who want *inclusion* of material. That is always how this site has worked. And, again, you still haven't explained to me what reasons were provided a year or two ago for inclusion of the debated material. Was there any argument provided back then that you haven't filled me in on, or are they limited to the arguments you're advancing now?


 * "If you don't care to review and respect the previous consensus..."


 * Let me see if I understand you correctly: you're effectively saying "Even though you oppose inclusion of the debated material and have provided arguments against it, it doesn't matter, because you haven't responded to the previous consensus, so it doesn't matter if your arguments make sense, but I, on the other hand, don't have to go over the previous consensus"? I'm just taking your word for it in good faith that there is a previous consensus which took place. If you really care about the previous consensus, you can just *make the arguments that were made before*.


 * "then I certainly will oppose your effort to declare all former effort and wrangling and weeks of discussion moot at your mere whim" There is something very revealing here: You're not talking about Wikipedia policy. I am. It is Wikipedia policy that consensus is necessary for inclusion of material, not for exclusion of existing material. You, however, are saying, effectively, "We spent weeks debating this point before, so it doesn't matter if I keep not addressing your arguments."


 * I will say it again:


 * (a) the implication of the article saying "Despite mainstream findings of evidence to the contrary, proponents of the theory conclude..." is that the theory is incorrect. Really, what is the point of inserting a quick mention of its unpopularity (even though it's already mentioned previously in the article) right before the conclusion of proponents? We've already been told it's unpopular. This is just a cheap shot. Yes, it's true that it's unpopular, but that doesn't mean it ought to be mentioned (again) in the MIDDLE of an explanation of the theory. The title of the subsection is "assertions", so it should be limited to that. There's no plausible case of people being confused about whether or not the theory is unpopular when reading that section because it's mentioned early in the article ("The Austrian explanation of the business cycle differs significantly from the mainstream understanding of business cycles, and is generally rejected by mainstream economists.") and there's a criticism section as well ("According to most mainstream economists, the Austrian business cycle theory is incorrect").


 * (b) the burden of consensus falls on those seeking inclusion of material, not those who want to get rid of existing material.


 * The only arguments you made in your last post were 'We work by consensus' (ignoring point-b, which I mentioned before, but you haven't addressed) and 'we decided this before' (as if Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia where decisions concerning article content can change, which I've mentioned before, but you haven't addressed). These arguments followed the ones which you promptly abandoned 'A minority viewpoint should be treated as fringe' and 'ABCT is fringe' (without you actually explaining *why* you think ABCT is fringe).


 * So here's a very simple question: *Why* do you support inclusion of the debated material? Is it because there was consensus for inclusion a couple years ago? Why is that a good enough argument? It it because those who oppose material in an article have to have consensus? Where's that rule? Is it because ABCT is fringe? If so, what is an argument for why ABCT is fringe? You still haven't provided one (other than 'because it's minority'). Is there another argument for inclusion? If so, what is it?


 * "And, if anyone has ducked out of discussion, it appears to be you. I've clearly invited you to discuss your views about Fringe theories, and yet you've not made a single post."


 * This is another revealing post. I'm under no obligation to explain my views on what should constitute a fringe theory according to the site's policy. As long as I accept the current official explanation of what a fringe theory is, then I can work with that. I currently accept the current official explanation of what a fringe theory is. You can just go with that.


 * You, however, if you still want to argue that ABCT is fringe (you didn't actually assert this position in the last post), will have to provide an argument for that position (instead of just asserting that position without any argumentation whatsoever, and, hopefully, it will not be 'because it's minority'). I've already explained my position--ABCT is far more popular within the economists community that Earth=flat is among scientists or Holocaust-denialism among historians (examples on the relevant rule page). Yes, ABCT is minority, but it is far more popular than those notions. It doesn't even come close to being that unpopular. And since the burden of explaining an edit falls on those who want inclusion of material, and not those who want exclusion of existing material, you're going to have advance a plausible argument for why ABCT is fringe in order for my view of why ABCT is not fringe to become relevant. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 May 2012


 * I will repeat myself this one last time. You keep claiming that the burden for inclusion is on me.  For the Nth time, THAT BURDEN HAS BEEN MET.  I'm not going to rehash past years of wrangling on-demand for you alone, as if you are some Wiki God.  You are free to review and respect all of the previous discussion.  Likewise, you are free to test whether consensus may have changed.  If you are too lazy to do either of those, then your mere whim will not suffice as a substitute.   BigK HeX(talk) 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is another revealing post. I'm aware the burden has been met (by taking your word on good faith). I said it was met (taking your word on good faith). I never said it wasn't met (so why say it was, like I'm saying it wasn't). The met burden that was once sufficient has now been challenged by 2 editors. It was met, it's not anymore. Just because a burden for an edit is met once doesn't mean that the relevant edit must now stand forever. Burdens get met. Often, they are later challenged. Then they get debated again. Then the edit might change. That's how this site works. What I have actually said is that you ought to provide arguments for inclusion, because once someone objects to article content, any consensus that once existed is gone until it exists again (if this ends up occurring).


 * I'm not the one claiming that just because there was a decision on something a long time ago, that that decision must stand even though its burden is not longer met (the moment it becomes challenged, thereby no longer constituting consensus). I am not aware that it has been met other than your say so. Since you haven't directed me to the past discussion on this issue (assuming it exists) and have ignored all my other points in the previous posts, I will go through the archives tomorrow and see if I can find it. That's a tedious process, and you should be aware that it's not natural for someone to do that on the off-chance that the relevant issue has been discussed before. I understand that there may have been a consensus on this, but since I'm not aware of its existence at present (other than your saying it is), I would have hoped that you would have either (a) not cared about its existence and just advanced your own arguments for inclusion, which, incidentally, you *did* until I repeatedly argued against your arguments/pointed out that you were just repeating arguments without responding to mine or (b) have found it and directed me to it, since you brought it up, and it would be very tedious for me to go look for an old discussion on an edit I do everything I do an edit on the off-chance that it was discussed before or (c) informed me that there were arguments made in that old consensus that you haven't made here (which you haven't, so you're basically saying "There was an old consensus, take my word for it, I'm not telling you where to find it, and you need to address those other arguments which I'm unaware of/not telling you about before we can move forward".


 * Absent anything new, you're no longer advancing any arguments other than "You haven't addressed the old consensus". Since this is now your only objection to my position for the time being, I'll go look for the old consensus tomorrow. If I find the old consensus, I'll address any points you haven't raised, if any exist. Since it would be very time consuming for me to go look for it, I hope that you would at least provide me with a more specific idea of when this took place. Like "I think it was around Q4 2010", or something like that. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 May 2012


 * It was taking  more than 10 minutes to find.  So, I suppose it'd  b e  quicker just to reiterate the arguments.  I'll post discussion when  I get a moment.   BigK HeX(talk) 16:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since an outstanding objection to the removal of the debated content has been made. The burden is on those who want inclusion of debated material. There is currently a majority of editors (who have written about this recently) that agree with my position. I am making the relevant change. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 May 2012

Looking at what I am assuming is the edit in question, I agree with Byelf2007. The lead of the article is already quite clear on the ABCT's lack of mainstream support. Pushing past reasonable compromise and into "beat-up mode" just leads to constant, tedious disputes. Also, I briefly reviewed Friedman's 1993 article and he does not discuss ABCT at all, and thus the citation could be viewed as synthetic. Generally I would caution editors to not take a virulent POV approach and to not try to Right Great Wrongs - it's a waste of time to go past reasonable description. Look at the Keeler thread directly above and you'll see that Cretog8, another veteran economics editor, disagreed with BigK Hex's attempt to take out a reasonable citation. This article does have to let the theory breathe a little. With that said, if the mainstream retort ("Despite mainstream evidence to the contrary") was more focused, my view would likely be different. Also, since both Barry Eichengreen and William White have come out specifically citing "Austrian" theory favorably in recent years and mainstream monetarists have had some notable "mea culpas", there's room to say that the question of mainstream criticism and support is a delicate one. II | (t - c) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)