User talk:AidWorker

Fair trade
Hi, You made some really good points over at Talk:Fair trade impact studies. It's not one of our best articles. Would you like to help fix it up? bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair Trade USA
Hi AidWorker! Could you please provide some assistance at Talk:Fair Trade USA regarding one of your edits? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with the references? They seem to conform to normal academic standards. ThanksAidWorker (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Fair Trade USA (instead of having it in two places). GoingBatty (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558744740 your edit] to Bengal famine of 1943 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574494178 your edit] to Bengal famine of 1943 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585148293 your edit] to International Fairtrade Certification Mark may have broken the syntax by modifying 7 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Bengal Famine
I did not put up those POV tags and neither did the other recent editor. Your frustration with the quality of the page is quite reasonable, because the article is terrible, but your comments are very impolite infractions of WP:NPA. I'm rewriting the entire article from scratch in a sandbox. I expect it to take another couple of months, but perhaps a bit less. I will replace the entire article in one edit rather than bit by bit, because huge sections are missing. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Lingzhi/sandbox Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 redux
Hi AidWorker. Regarding this article: I rolled back your reversion to the old version, giving my reasoning on the talk page.

Whether your objections are cogent or not I don't yet know. But as a practical matter you seem to be currently greatly outnumbered, and by a coterie of erudite persons and not just a tag-team of trolls. So as a practical matter it would behoove you to make an effort to be charming and persuasive if you want to get anywhere. I did not get a charming-and-persuasive vibe from your talk page post.

Your talk page post if very long, and its hard to figure out a way forward from it. I don't think it is likely that you are going to get consensus to roll back to the old version. You could try an RfC to bring in new eyes. But it's a complex subject and I don't know if that'll get you anywhere. It might if you present the issue succinctly and clearly.

So you are going to need to work with the other editors I think, such as User:Lingzhi. My opinion is that your best way forward might be small posts offering specific suggestions. Stuff like "Here it said X caused Y, but I think we should add "but according so Professor Smith [or: 'some analysts' or whatever], Y might have been also partly caused by Z". And of course you'd have a good ref for that. That sort of thing.

This would be slow movement, but there's no hurry. Our goal is to get it right eventually, not necessarily right away. Herostratus (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The contributor User:Lingzhi has said that he is writing to support his personal ideological agenda, that nothing that Indians did or did not do contributed to the catastophe of thefamine. He stated that he has the objective of removing anything on the page that says that they did. He has removed widely accepted, almost universally accepted evidence, that throws doubt on his agenda. He has also removed the conclusions various commentators have reached. He has introduced his own, unpublished interpretations. All his citations that I have checked prove to bear no relation to what is in his source. There is cherrypicking. All of which is generally agreed to lead to a false message. False beliefs on famine have killed millions in the past, and this could kill more.

Wikipedia guidelines are established to prevent such abuses, demanding that entries cover the different points of view and do not push the ideologies of a single editor or group of editors. It is the duty of the whole Wikipedia community to enforce this.

My comment on this submission covered only the presentation in relation to Wikipedia guidelines. It did not present a refutation of his analysis and data, because because Wikipedia says that this should not appear on the Talk page. It is therefore very mild compared to what would be said in response to a submission to academic journal or to a report prepared for FAO, the World Bank etc for submission to a government.

The previous entry set out the generally accepted facts and evidence and the range of often contradictory concludions that had been drawn from them. It carefully did not push my particular conclusions, and covered conclusions that I do not think convincing. Most of the evidence have been in the public domain since the early 1950s and all have been available since the mid 1970s, so the disagreements are mainly on the interpretations of the evidence, not the facts.

If you look at the talk page you will find the problems that have arisen with this particular contributor. He flatly refuses to discuss anything with me. He refuses to read anything that contradicts his point of view or that he fears may contradict it. He refused to read my detailed comment on his submission. I have been abused for having a theoretical stance I do not have, for having political beliefs and beliefs about the famine that I do not have, for saying things I did not say and for omitting things I did not omit. Similar ad hominem attacks on commentators who do not support his agenda occur. The talk page bears this out. How do you suggest I work with someone who flatly refuses to follow Wikipedia guidelines or academic standards?

It is not possible to spend the next ten years changing User:Lingzhi’s 25,000 word submission once sentence a a time: too many people will die.

I should like to take up the suggestion that this goes to an expert panel, encompassing all views, and including people who stop famines for a living. AidWorker (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:AidWorker


A tag has been placed on User:AidWorker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/what-is-fair-trade-fair-trade-more-ethical-than-free-trade-giving-brighter-economic-future/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (t) Josve05a  (c) 23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article draft as requested
Herewith the article text as requested.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Griffith’s review of Fairtrade research from the agricultural economics and marketing perspective argues that while it is very profitable for retailers, there is reason to doubt that much of the extra that consumers pay reaches the Third World, and to doubt that farmers get much if any of what does reach Third World exporters. There is no evidence that Fairtrade farmers generally get higher prices. There is no evidence that Fairtrade generally produces a positive economic impact on Fairtrade farmers, though it may harm non-Fairtrade farmers. The failure of Fairtrade sellers to give relevant information on what happens to the extra payment appears to be ‘Unfair Trading’ in all EU countries under Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices and may be criminal. He concludes that Fairtrade is fundamentally unethical.

Griffiths takes the mainstream agricultural marketing economics perspective, and argues that Fairtrade is unethical, ineffective, and very often criminal.

There are almost no formal impact studies attempting to measure impacts on Fairtrade farmers and a control of matched non-Fairtrade farmers, covering the period before and after the introduction of Fairtrade. And there appear to be none assessing which of the many aid organizations involved is responsible for any changes observed.

WHAT PROPORTION OF THE MONEY REACHES THE FARMERS?

The Fairtrade Foundation does not monitor how much extra retailers charge for Fairtrade goods, and retailers almost never sell identical Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade lines side by side, so it is rarely possible to determine how much extra is charged or how much reaches the producers. In four cases it has been possible to find out. One British café chain was passing on less than one percent of the extra charged to the exporting cooperative ; in Finland, Valkila, Haaparanta and Niemi found that consumers paid much more for Fairtrade, and that only 11.5% reached the exporter. Kilian, Jones, Pratt and Villalobos talk of US Fairtrade coffee getting $5 per lb extra at retail, of which the exporter would have received only 2%. Mendoza and Bastiaensen calculated that in the UK only 1.6% to 18% of the extra charged for one product line reached the farmer. All these studies assume that the importers paid the full Fairtrade price, which is not necessarily the case.

The Fairtrade Foundation does not monitor how much of the extra money paid to the exporting cooperatives reaches the farmer. The cooperatives incur costs in reaching the Fairtrade political standards, and these are incurred on all production, even if only a small amount is sold at Fairtrade prices. The most successful cooperatives appear to spend a third of the extra price received on this: some less successful cooperatives spend more than they gain.

There is no evidence that Fairtrade farmers get higher prices on average. Anecdotes state that farmers were paid more, or less, by traders than by Fairtrade cooperatives. Few of these anecdotes address the problems of price reporting in Third World markets, and few address the complexity of the different price packages (which may or may not include credit, harvesting labour, spray application, transport and processing for instance). Cooperatives typically average prices over the year, so they pay less than traders at some times, more at others. Bassett (2009) is able to compare prices accurately where Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade farmers have to sell cotton to the same monopsonistic ginneries. Fairtrade encouraged Nicaraguan farmers to switch to organic coffee, which resulted in a higher price per pound, but a lower net income because of higher costs and lower yields.

Under EU law trading is ‘unfair’ and criminal, if sellers fail to give consumers important information about a product – information that is likely to cause the average consumer to make a different purchasing decision. The courts have not yet ruled on when information on the proportion reaching producers falls in this category.

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * Please don't use article talk pages as a forum for your views. If you have specific changes to suggest re Bengal famine of 1943, provide focused suggestions, with reliable sources so that other editors can react to them meaningfully. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 23:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bengal famine of 1943. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''And you are bound to maintain WP:STATUSQUO on anything you want to change, until you reach a consensus on the talk page. ''  Tyler Durden  (talk)  19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In particular, you are calling an editor a vandal. Please read WP:VANDALISM. I see no vandalism occurring, and I speak as an editor with over 160,000 edits and as an Administrator for close to nine years, one who has dealt with probably thousands of instances of real vandalism. Doug Weller  talk 14:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hyperinflation in Germany
Re: "As an economist who has worked in countries with very high inflation, I am interested in the problems that arise from inflation"

Well, then as an economist, do research it for us all and update the article with reliable sources. Is it a problem? Zezen (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)