User talk:Morethom

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! P.S. I found the above useful on my Talk page. May it be for you as well, as your time & other commitments allow. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Edit dispute on 1st paragraph of Constitutional economics
Hello, MT. It may be one those seasons.

I was going to post what follows on the above Talk page but thought it might help to try this avenue. I have no axe to grind other than improving the article. I'm sure that your view is similar. I'll look for your response below. We can always go to the above Talk page if need be.

The recent exchange on the above is a good example of what can waste time and effort in trying to improve an article even by informed, good-faith editors who could be working together. "Waste" here is relative to an an ideal, not necessarily how the world works. Maybe something can be learned from the mistakes. Here is the relevant article edit history numbered by order of most recent  & with abbreviations of the user names & [edits] of (1) & (3) for clarity & relevance to current uses):

2. 04:19, 27 August 2010 M (Return to previous definition changed 1.without discussion 2.with ignorance of constitutionalism 3. with arbitrary choice of most reliable definition Undid revision 381157771)

3. 18:03, 26 August 2010 T ([New] 1st 2 sent. [to replace] 1st 2 sent. earlier objected to as lacking a wp:reliable source [with added] fn.;Buchanan quote following is not source for what preceded it & lacks context, so [removed];...)

2. 11:39, 26 August 2010 M (providing requested citation from part "Constitutionalism and Contractarianism" of Nobel lecture)

1. 15:35, 19 August 2010 C ([ http://constitutionaleconomics.org/] doesn't appear to be reliable source)

(1T) (1) reads:
 * Constitutional economics (CE) is a field of economics and constitutionalism which describes and analyzes the specific interrelationships between constitutional issues and the structure and functioning of the economy. It takes into account the significant impacts of political economic decisions as opposed to limiting analysis to economic relationships as functions of the dynamics of distribution of “marketable” goods and services.

This is almost identical to that of the source objected in (1):  http://constitutionaleconomics.org/, which reads:
 * Constitutional Economics (CE) is a field of economics which describes and analyses the specific inter-relationships between constitutional issues and the structure and functioning of the economy. It takes into account the significant impacts of political economic decisions as opposed to limiting analysis to economic relationships as functions of the dynamics of distribution of "marketable" goods and services.

2T. (2) adds to (1) a direct quotation from James M. Buchanan's Nobel Prize address with an indirect link to that source:
 * "The political economist who seeks to offer normative advice, must, of necessity, concentrate on the process or structure within which political decisions are observed to be made. Existing constitutions, or structures or rules, are the subject of critical scrutiny".[fn.: of which the direct & fully cited (& so preferable) link is James M. Buchanan Jr., 1986. "The Constitution of Economic Policy." Prize Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 8. +section numeral(s).

To rephrase (3), that's not the source of (1) (rather, http://constitutionaleconomics.org/ is the source per above). Moreover, (1) from an unreliable source carries over to (2), and  is there no  obvious logical connection between the added quotation in (2) and (1).

3T. M found a convenient, compact, and wp:reliable source for (3):
 * Constitutional economics is a research program in economics and constitutionalism that has been described as extending beyond the definition of  'the economic analysis of constitutional law' in explaining the choice "of alternative sets of legal-institutional-constitutional rules that constrain the choices and activities of economic and political agents."  This is distinct from explaining the choices of economic and political agents within those rules, a subject of "orthodox" economics.[fn.: Ludwig Van den Hauwe, 2005.  "Constitutional Economics II," The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics, pp. 223-24. [Slightly edited to accommodate some (IMO good) points at (2).]

4T. If someone is prepared for the Nobel effort to use more satisfactorily Prof. Buchanan's lecture as a source that has  advantages similar to (3), no one should object. In the meanwhile, I believe that (as modified in (3T) has the advantages noted, is more likely to be understood by more readers, and so should be used as an interim Edit. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) -Completely agree. All next suggestions starting tomorrow will be done the only after preliminary discussion with you. Great to find new friend![User: Morethom]]27 August (UTS) Morethom (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. You might consider the (4T) suggested Edit for the article in the mean time. I did look at the Buchanan link but liked the Van d. H. alternative, b/c it of its comparative simplicity. I tried to simplify  even that down further. Maybe you could tease something more from B's lecture.  Van d. H. had the advantage of being able to stand on Buchanan's shoulders, and I, on V.d. H.'s. I'll continue to keep an eye out here.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Oops. Didn't see your most recent article Edit till now. Quick reactions.  Lead needs paragraphing.  JB certainly is a towering figure, but I suspect that he'd say that section 1 should have a heading (e.g. "Origins") should be about the subject, not about him as such.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (talk)Morethom (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)I agree with you that it is better to keep on the top V. d. H.'s (he certainly is very visible person in economic part of CE community) definition but in your editing version (3T.). I will try my best with teasing Nobel lecture for "Origins". Many thanks. Your contribution may lead to more broad and deep effect then just the article editing. I am on the travel mode for 2-3 week with very bad timing. But as far as I will have some time I will try.  Also I will need in future your advice on editing "Biblical Judges" and may be "Book of Judges". Morethom(UTS)Morethom (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly the Lead para. is OK, but sect. 1, where Buchanan is (appropriately) given space could use help. I definitely suggest that you not feel chained. We all do what we can but keep our lives. One thing I've found helpful in editing is from philosophy: the principle of charity.  It's saved me from many a hasty or bad Edit (not enough, though, or I'd get it all right the first time). You can write when you get back if you like. Best wishes.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * --ThomasmeeksHope you forgive me for it but I just created CE in Simple English that may help divide educational (Simple Eng.)and more scientific parts. My last independent move.

Please check it too. The article in basic Wikipedia may became a driving force for refreshing of whole "research program". Thanks for good wishes.--Morethom (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Morethom (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)