Talk:Geography and wealth

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Move.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Latitude and wealth → Geography and wealth — As discussed in AfD and DRV: The research field looks at broader geographical features, some of which are correlated with latitude (climate, diseases, agriculutre), others are uncorrelated (natural resources, access to waterways). ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support as nominator. ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Contra Dekimasu, while latitude does feature heavily (especially in the lead) even the current version of the article is not so latitude-centric that Geography and wealth would be an inappropriate title.  If the edits that need to be done get done (I voted delete in the original AfD & voted to restore in the DR in the expectation that the article will get fixed) then it just cannot stay at Latitude and wealth.  Both are reasons to move, I think leaving it as-is is a bad idea, better to have deleted it. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Otherwise too much of the article, and editors' time, would end up trying to support that particular angle, when it could become a comprehensive survey. Altho I don't have much time at the moment, a rewording of the first paragraph could easily be done by anyone. Novickas 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Anything's better than this; but Climate and wealth would be better still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support this article has been cleaned up significantly, but I think the title still has POV problems. "Geography and wealth" seems like a good answer, I'm not sure about "Climate and wealth" since I think climate is only one of the factors being discussed here. Mak (talk)  20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:


 * I read the deletion debates, but this needs a major overhaul if it's to be moved. Geography and wealth would probably be a better topic, but as it stands, the article is about what the title says: latitude. For that reason I don't feel comfortable supporting the move. Dekimasu よ! 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Gallup-Sachs paper (page 50), you get a list of considered independent variables: Some are latitude-related (ecozones, malaria), others aren't (altitude, distance to waterways). The article now might be latitude-heavy, but the research considers other factors, and with a rewrite of the lead this article can be pointed in the right direction. Choosing one causal factor over the others is simply problematic for policy reasons. ~ trialsanderrors 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible additional source
I note here a new additional source that is related. It is a primary source academic article, the best version I can link to may be pre-publication - at the very least I can't tell where it was published. On the other hand, it has a June 2007 publication date. An earlier version was published as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in 2006. It is being picked up by the discussion community, e.g. Brookings Institute. The paper is primarily about the effect of historical technology upon modern economic development, but does test geography in multiple ways as an alternative explanation (generally finding that historical technology is significant even when controlling for continent or latitude). The fourth paragraph of section 5 is a discussion of this aspect of the analysis, including a survey of significant sources on the issue. GRBerry 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)