User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 14

your comment on my talk page

 * please explain why a footnoted reference is original research
 * please identify with reference to the relevant wiki policy. If you say that is original research then every footnoted edit is. As I see it the policy is quite clear
 * This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.


 * The source is cited.


 * The fact that you seem to have a libertarian point of view shouldnt interfere with the topic.


 * By the way cathedrals were not as a rule built by the state but by churches.to take just one example from many, one with which I am familiar St. Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham
 * I propose to revert the text unless you can give me some good reason why notBacknumber1662 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The conclusion that you drew is “original research”; pay attention to what is written in “Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position”:
 * Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.


 * Your ad hominem on my POV is an artefact of your not understanding either WP:OR or the economics here.


 * As to the funding of cathedrals, during the Middle Ages far more stone was quarried to build cathedrals than the Egyptians put into their pyramids. The funding came primarily from an aristocracy who were the state and extracted their wealth through force and through the threat of force.


 * Again, your insertion was “original research” and missed the point. Even had my illustration been ill-chosen, the point would remain that state extraction of resources reduces funding of R&D and of implementation of techologies that would have been research, developed, and implemented had the extractions not been made.


 * I propose that you do considerably more careful thinking about economics before barreling ahead anywhere. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * as to cathedrals I strongly suggest you check up the sources. lets deal with cathedrals in England from B (since I cited Birmingham Bristol started by a landowner and royal official (in his personal capacity) arguable Bury St Edwards started by an abbot not state at all Canterbury..started before there was a state by St Augustine of Canterbury. Chelmsford built (or at least extensively rebuilt after being badly damaged) by public subscription last century (check the relevant wiki articles.) I do hope you have sources for your assertion about the quantity of stone. You are simply wrong and your anti Christian non neutral point of view clearly shows.


 * Now as to the main issue, synthesis is combining or conflating matters as you correctly say citing sources that when put together . The quotation was a single source nothing was put together. Now as to whether its a useful note or not, I suggest we may ask some specialist in the field or better still an administrator. Do you have any suggestions? You will see I am not barreling (to use your expression, unlike yourself who deleted without any discussion)I am giving you the opportunity which you refused to give me. Lets both assume good faith and see if we can reach some meaningful consensis. Backnumber1662 (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Grabbing at “synthesis” in the title of that section will not save you from the policy itself.


 * I'll underline the “original research”:
 * However the book suffers from a large number of bizarre and glaring absurdities such as the statement that television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam. Norris Dam was completed in 1936, television broadcasting commenced in 1940.
 * Hazlitt doesn't claim himself not to understand history, nor are you citing someone who makes this mistaken inference.


 * You're presuming here
 * that diversions before 1940 didn't affect how much money people had in 1940 for things such as televisions, and
 * that diversions before 1940 didn't affect when regular broadcasting began and therefore demand for televisions.
 * Your conclusion, which follows on these presumptions, that Hazlitt has produced a “bizarre and glaring absurdit[y]” is “original research”. (And the the real absurdity here is in your presumptions.)


 * I would be happy for you to bring your own behavior to the attention of an adminstrator.


 * As to your suggestion of specialists, I am an economist. Mind you that this matter doesn't call for an economist.  You have studiously avoided the principle that renders your conclusion fallacious: State extraction of resources reduces funding of R&D and of implementation of techologies that would have been research, developed, and implemented had the extractions not been made.  One does need to be an economist to see that much.


 * There's no barrelling in my case. You're simply violating WP:OR.  Again, I'd be happy to see you pull an administrator into this; if you persist in making or in threatening to make this edit in violation of WP:OR, then I will call upon the administration. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply on the issue of cathedrals got trashed by an edit conflict as you revised your comment to my talk page:


 * Pointing to some privately funded cathedrals does not somehow disprove that an enormous amount of funding for cathedrals was provided by the state. It is as if you were to claim that a history of some private funding for space research and exploration somehow disproves that there was massive state expenditure on space programmes.


 * Your claim that an “anti Christian non neutral point” drives my argument is the second sort of ad hominem attack from you. I would give you a pass if the ad hominem were at least logically founded, but it isn't.  If you persist in this pattern of attack, then I will request that you be blocked. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AS to cathedrals please cite your sources. I have.
 * As to administrators by all means please do
 * As to the topic at hand would you be content if the words you underlined were omitted and the reader left to read the source and draw his or her own conclusion. Once again I am trying not to be aggressive, I too have an economics major (though my post grad was law)Backnumber1662 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the factual claim on cathedrals, see for example The Western Tradition by Eugen Weber. For the claim on logic, see any introductory text.
 * Well, if you want me to contact an administrator, then presumably you'll continue to threaten the article with “original research” or attack me with ill-founded ad hominem. I hope that you'll cease to do either.
 * Without the conclusion, and without the synthesis in drawing attention to when the dam was built and when broadcasting began (in the hope that readers will make the same presumption as you), you have
 * Hazlitt makes the statement that “television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam.”
 * which is then at best apropos of nothing. I won't actively object to that, but you should understand that some editor can always insert a quote from Hazlitt about how costs cascaded; your hope that readers will conclude that the claim is a “bizarre and glaring absurdit[y]” will not be realized.
 * I don't know whence you claim to have got an economics degree if you won't see that the actions of 1936 can have costs in 1940. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AS to your suggestion agreed, save with one rider the topics on TV and Norris Dam should be referenced so it would read television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam.” the reader can make their own decisions
 * More generally as to your principle 'State extraction of resources reduces funding of R&D and of implementation of techologies that would have been research, developed, and implemented had the extractions not been made.''
 * How do you assert this when you also assert (quite correctly) that space research (and for that matter most rocketry research cf Wernher von Braun) was state based. (I am using your example here)
 * Yes quite off the topic but I really am interestedBacknumber1662 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. But you'll have to be prepared for some other editor to delete it as apropos of nothing until and unless someone else inserts the sort of quotation that I mention. (I may well do the latter.)
 * The reconciliation is trivial: R&D and implementation is not some single homogenous entity. Thus, it is perfectly possible to note that R&D and implementation of one technology reduces R&D and implementation of some other technology.  It is nearly certain that the marginal effect of some state-sponsored research is to increase the near-term R&D and implementation of some technologies. (The next question is of on which technologies ought expenditure to be made.) But that won't work in the case of the Norris Dam and television.
 * The reason that one must speak and write in terms of the near-term is that even if we focus only on one particular technology, the long-term effect of state sponsorship is negative, unless indeed the technology is just something that one would never want in such quantities. There is as yet (and probably never will be) a system for economically efficient pricing in administrative allocation; thus, such allocations are always to some extent shooting in the dark.  Except where transactions costs are somehow not only lower for administrative allocation than for market allocation, but sufficiently lower to off-set the costs of irrational pricing, there is a performance hit in state-sponsorship.  State-sponsored rocketry and space research has reduced economic growth; even space research itself takes that long-run hit.
 * The problem here is not dams or cathedrals per sese — it is their funding when they are not privately funded. Refusing to let people built dams, cathedrals, or rockets with their own property is the same problem as forcing them to do so. (For obvious example: Someone who is not allowed to contribute to a cathedral may feel less reason to be productive as money does not do as much for him.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

English!
Just reading your bit about English. What do you mean? Do you mean that American authors actually PREFER British English? Are you saying that British English is proper English? I'm not sure - it's a bit ambiguous. If this is indeed the case, then all articles should be in proper English, because it's more aesthetically pleasing, and English people object to American spellings much more than Americans object to English spellings!

Regarding the state of English, Americans seem intent on using "obligate" where "oblige" will do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.80.229 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're reading that passage unnaturally, because of your actively insane belief that only British English is proper and that American English is improper. In articles written in American English, some Wikipedia editors will dismiss a proper construction, claiming that it is peculiarly British when it simply isn't.


 * In some cases “obligate” has the same sense as does “oblige”, but in some cases it does not. Further, these two words enter English by different etymological routes; “obligate” coming more directly from Latin.  Meanwhile, “orientate” is simply a back-formation originally produced by the less literate.  It too gets used by Americans, but for example our university presses would reject it whereas I've seen OUP use it. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Okay" article
You changed "emphasises" to "emphasizes" but you obviously didn't read my comment. It was ORIGINALLY "emphasises" so that's how it should be left, according to the Manual of Style (the original style should be used). Check previous edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.80.229 (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Check previous versions by Cluebot and Quintote and you'll see I'm right. Therefore you should change it back. I would appreciate an apology because I wasn't actually changing it, I was reverting it. Thanks. 90.205.80.229 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't merely correct the grammar, you attempted to use it as cover for changing the spelling to British spelling, and this is part of a clear pattern following upon your declarations that American English is improper and abnormal. You are not entitled to any sort of apology.  You will be reverted and warned by other editors until either you cease or the administration recognizes that you need to be blocked as an unconstructive editor. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I've stopped that now - if you check my recent edits, you'll see that. However, you didn't acknowledge my point - it was spelt "emphasises" in previous versions of the article, so I was NOT changing that word. It should be left as it was. I have not attempted to reinstate ANY of my other changes - only this one, because that is how it ORIGINALLY was in the article. Please tell me why you've changed THIS ONE WORD, when I left it how it ORIGINALLY was. Thanks. 90.205.80.229 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope that you've stopped it not merely now but for good.
 * And it could have been spelled “imfezaizis” in previous versions; I wouldn't respect that precedent either. Articles are not supposed to use a mixture of British and American English.


 * Just to clarify again, it was:


 * Originally: "emphasises"
 * then someone changed it to "emphasize"
 * so I changed it back to "emphasises".


 * Do you see where I'm coming from? SOMEONE ELSE changed the word from British to American English, and in doing so, messed up the grammar. I merely reverted it. I did NOT change it to British English, because that's how it ORIGINALLY was. ::Please check the edits by Cluebot and Quintote which were much earlier than my edits. 90.205.80.229 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see from where you are goming, which is to say that I see the path that you have been taking. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He's right, you know. I checked and it was originally "emphasises". Avengah (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, sock-puppet! —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)