User talk:Whomyl

Whomyl, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Please read WP:EW
Your apparent belief that wholesale reverts are the proper procedure may well fall afoul of the Wikipedia polices concerning living persons WP:BLP, and edit was WP:EW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is no good to get into bouncing edits back and forth. What is the correct forum to debate these issues? The "Geoism" "talk" page? Here?

I am not opposed to reexamining this list and being more selective, especially with regard to living persons and more speculative connections, but we should debate that elsewhere first; it does not seem efficient for you to just delete whole sections. I'm not sure how to help you improve your edit when it is in that form. Sorry if my ignorance about Wikipedia is causing friction.


 * I suggest you restrict individual additions who are explicitly linked to Georgism by secondary sources. It is not up to us to decide who is and who is not related to a topic - WP:RS and WP:V require that the linking be done by a secondary source - not by us no matter how much we individually know about a topic.   If the source does not explicitly say "Georgism" or "George" then the person ought not be in the list.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not make subjective judgements, however it is sufficient for someone to state the economic or moral case in his/her own words; if someone says that economic rent from nature should be captured by the public instead of by private monopolizers of nature, and that source of revenue is superior to taxation of labor and capital, then there is no ambiguity at all.


 * The philosophy is much older than George, so your standard is invalid. Even many modern dedicated "Georgists" do not use that term for social/political/ideological reasons:


 * "geo-libertarians", "geo-mutualists/anarchists", any sane politician, economists who want tenure, liberals who disapprove of George's views on Chinese immigration, geoists who preceded George, people who don't like "isms", people who think the name sounds cultish, people who do not want to be socially/politically connected with utopian evangelists, etc.


 * The standard of requiring reliable sources per Wikipedia policy is not "invalid", and it's not negotiable. I fear you are invested in the topic to some degree. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am invested, but I want everything to be honest, accurate, and objective. Would you please find an example of an unreliable source, so that I know what you are talking about and can make improvements or remove the content?

Georgism
PLEASE make sure you have valid RS sources for your additions to "Georgism" -- Many appear unrelated to Henry George and Georgism, and your assertions that they are related does not comport with Wikipedia policies. Recheck every single addition you have made, and give cites from reliable sources directly connecting them with George -- Laffer, for example, I can find zero sources making such a connection, and I suspect that almost all of the additions will have to be removed if unsourced or improperly sourced. DF Nolan also has no proper source for the claim made -- heck essentially none of the added names are sourced. This is not "optional" - unsourced or improperly sourced claims shall be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would not argue that Laffer was a "Georgist", but I assumed that a letter in his own words stating that he was influenced by Georgism would satisfy that requirement. There are other sources, but I chose that one because I thought it was best. Nolan, on the other hand, was a fairly vocal Georgist.  He explicitly states that he is a "single tax" Georgist, the most radical form of Georgist.  Nolan was more of a Georgist even than I am... so perhaps you should do a little more research on this subject before jumping to conclusions.


 * I will carefully examine the list and also listen to any concerns you have. Want to remove Laffer?  It would be helpful for me to understand why, but go ahead.  Not Nolan though, but he was far more than influenced.  Again, I'm not opposed to you making edits and removals, but you are choosing people I do not accept.  For example, last time  made this sort of edit, I removed at least a couple names from the Wiki page, including Bill Moyers, but none of the people Bobrayner had selected. I'm not being stubborn; I know a lot about this issue and have the ability to accurately correct you.  If you see any errors, please continue to point them out just as you have done now and help me understand what the problem is.


 * Um -- I knew Nolan at one point when he was a student. And I assure you that you would need actual sources and not just assertions that you know he was a Georgist.   In fact, in those days, he opposed all taxes not directly based on benefit to the person or thing being taxed.  And mentioning George in a book is not sufficient to assert "influenced."    Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by mentioning in a book... Nolan? He wrote this in the link I provided: "My own preference is for a single tax on land." That is even more Georgist than most Georgists, and if that is not enough, I cannot imagine what would be... "Single tax" is not just a phrase he happened to use; that is an explicitly Georgist phrase right from George himself.  Anyway, land value taxation is not actually a tax; that is a misnomer.  There are fees, fines, and taxes (different things), and LVT is technically a user-fee, a fact that Nolan possibly realized later, but that is irrelevant, because he was certainly influenced.


 * Update: even though Laffer was clearly influenced by George's writing and geoist taxation, I think you have a good point that he may have had his own more politically expedient version of the idea that real geoists would not recognize as being authentic. In that view, I removed Laffer. whomyl

Given the dispute, and the likelihood that Michael Hudson has gone in and been taken out of the list of 'economic georgists' several times, it might be wisest to put him in with following parenthesis "(disputed)" C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that, although I still do not understand the dispute. He said he agreed with George. He worked for a georgist organization. He restates George in his own words. He co-authors georgist books. My primary objective is to not rock the boat and avoid rousing the ancap trolls. I am the only georgist who looks at the page, so we will lose any votes. That entire section is dangerously close to being removed entirely. So I would rather just avoid everything that is controversial. There are many famous Georgists who are not on that list. Whomyl (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutualism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP
That policy requires removal of contentious claims not strongly sourced. I urge you to self-revert pending any actual outcome of the RfC on the talk page. In fact, policy requires that you revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will temporarily remove it and give people a chance to raise objections. Simply asserting that the sources do not verify the claim is unacceptable though. You will need to provide plausible concerns. Whomyl (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:EW
Covers edit war, and in which you appear to be an avid participant. I urge you to self-revert the material which is being discussed lest any admin decide to block you. The reason for an RfC is to prevent such acts, and your apparent desire not to abide by talk page discussion is troubling. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You reverted 3000 characters and repeatedly ignored my request to know which portion of my edit you thought was questionable. You also neglect to mention that I already reverted my edit pending an explanation of what you are seeking consensus on.Whomyl (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Right-of-way (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

crying "vandalism"
On edits you do not like, and about which a talk page discussion exists, is improper. Very improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC) And saying "there is no discussion" is inane here -- in fact it has several posts which should have alerted you - not to mention the prior discussions which said you need to only use sources making links directly to Georgism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you accidentally removed an entire section of the article, including the section heading, and ~7000 characters. If it was in fact an accident, then perhaps an apology is in order but I didn't "Cry vandalism"; I said, "apparently", for I can see no other intentional cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgism&diff=613139746&oldid=613052297 Whomyl (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The extended material did not appear to be sourced to non-Georgist sources AFAICT - and included a number of entries with no sourcing at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good luck finding "non-georgist" sources about georgism. The content is not about anything controversial. The section is an explanation of how georgists interpret their own philosophy, so seeking georgist sources is acceptable.  In any case, you will find that some of the sources are "non-georgist".  It's challenging to find people who actually understand the concepts and yet would not consider themselves at least partly georgist.Whomyl (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you do not find objective reliable sources on a topic, it is clear that the material is not deemed important to secondary source writers. The inclusion of a "xxx tax" as being supported by Georgists can not be used to say "George Gnarph supports the 'xxx tax' and is therefore a Georgist".  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I basically agree. But how are you defining non-georgist?  It is often said that it is impossible to understand geoism and to substantially disagree.  That might be over-stating the case, but you can see that criticisms consist of misunderstandings and disagreements about morality (or lack thereof) and about the appropriate approach to the problem.  There are probably people in ecological economics and mutualism who understand georgism and yet do not consider themselves georgist, but don't be surprised if they also sound sympathetic.Whomyl (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Find articles written specifically by folks who are not self-identified as "Georgist" is one start, and not using publications specifically aimed at Georgists. Just like we do not use Scientology pamphlets to describe what Scientology is, we rely on secondary reliable sources. Collect (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just when I was beginning to think you were not trolling.... Let me know if you find secondary sources saying "Georgists think that they believe X, but actually they are wrong; they believe Y instead." This is all moot anyway, since if you read the sources, you will find that they are good.  The ones that are not written by "non-georgists" are all academic.Whomyl (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Georgism while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Communism and geoism
"George seems to have a way of speaking directly to and inspiring both individualists and socialists."

Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I like George. I like Georgism/geoism. But I do not consider myself a geoist. I typically use the labels libertarian, anarchist, anarchist without adjectives, or left-libertarian (in that order) to describe those philosophies that promote a more egalitarian view of land, but the specific philosophy to which I adhere is called social ecology. I personally think communism and geoism can peacefully coexist—a crucial aspect of anarchism without adjectives—but again, I'm neither a communist nor a geoist. This is the problem I have with identifying others as Georgists just because they said something nice about George or geoism once: one can perceive an economic policy to be better than another without self-identifying as such. I think we need concrete declarations of adherence to geoism before we include names in that article. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 15:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm never claiming that someone is a Geoist and nothing else, and I am not asking you to identify as anything. (Rarely is anyone only one thing.)  However, if someone says, "I like Georgism and we should do that," then he is a geoist.  It doesn't matter if he follows that statement up with "and minarchism/mutualism/socialism on top of Georgism would be even better," since those are not mutually exclusive.  Geoism one of the few fundamental conditions for any just & efficient economic system, so no matter what else someone is, an informed person is likely to be at least sympathetic to the idea.  In other words, though you may not like adjectives, if you say things such as "I like geoism; we should probably do something like that," and it is on record... then we have to take you at your words---what else do we have to go on than what you say?  George was also far from the first Georgist; he is just the person most closely identified with the idea.  Take Andrew Bisset (barrister) for example.  He wrote clearly about Georgism before George... is he a geoist?  Clearly he could not self-identify.  I understand that it may not be Wikipedia's place to interpret Bisset, but what if scholars say he was a geoist or that he recommended exactly the same policy?Whomyl (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privileges. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Classical economics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Hudson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry George, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Hudson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Robert Stout, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.  Schwede 66  02:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I probably intended to simply split it into two sentences at first. Whomyl (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you appreciate receiving feedback. Most of the time, splitting a sentence would not be a minor edit either.  Schwede 66  03:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Georgists and taxation
Hi Whomyl, I wonder if we can have a conversation away from the article. I agree with you that George and other early georgists believed that there should be multiple sources of government income. However, I seem to remember reading that George himself endorsed the term "Single Taxers" as an apt description for the primary political objective of the nascent Georgist movement. Also, I don't have the cites, but I also seem to remember early Georgists agreeing with the political logic of non-rental-capture forms of taxation. For example, an income tax (with a high deductable) and a wealth tax. You have put in the example of seigniorage, which I believe is not best described as a form of rental capture; rather, it's a tax on the holding of money. However, although I consider myself a georgist, I must confess that your readings on these issues are much more extensive than mine. LK (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I appreciate your careful and high quality edits.
 * You are right that George accepted the 'single tax' label. I believe he even included the term in passing in P&P. Shearman then wrote an article which George (as editor of the Standard) captioned with "single tax". However, others report that George was uncomfortable with the phrase. He was reportedly anxious to discard the previous label, a 'Henry George man'.
 * George didn't say much about other taxes or revenues.
 * He supported seigniorage "tax", which is in fact a rent generated from creating money, not from holding it.
 * That gets a bit complicated in our existing monetary system, which delegates the privilege of creating money to private industry and makes already having/holding money a practical and legal requirement for the process, thereby indirectly transferring second-hand seigniorage rents to Treasury bond holders and bank depositors.
 * In theory, George supported the direct taxation of other forms of rent extraction, such as over-fishing or excessive timber logging, but he clearly did not consider that to be a realistic concern. He said those concerns described "another sort of world" from what currently existed.
 * He might have mentioned taxing certain types of technology patents.
 * It is true that many Georgists supported income tax. Even George said it would be better than a tax on sales or imports. Georgists in Congress were the most influential advocates on an income tax and helped write it in a way that would allow the taxation of rents, not just wages.

Whomyl (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Whomyl, Thanks for the clarification. It really is impressive how extensive your readings are. It reminds me of Brad Delong, who is equally well read on a variety of subjects. However, I would disagree with your contention that Georgists only support raising government revenue from various forms of rental capture. I believe Georgists have supported other forms of revenue as politically expedient, and I don't think the article should make Georgists appear as dogmatic as right-wing libertarians, insisting that sources of revenue apart from rental capture are illegitimate. For example, I still would object to labeling the revenue from seigniorge, in whatever form (coining, money printing, or open market operations), as rental capture. It is partly so, in that expansion of the money supply to accommodate higher money demand is "free" revenue obtained from the right to create money. But the larger part of seigniorge is from the inflation tax; a rise in the general price level devaluing the money held by the public. Hence, I think it's best characterized as a tax on money holdings -- a form of wealth tax. LK (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Everyday Georgism in Cleveland
Whomyl—Many thanks for your Georgist contributions to the Tom L. Johnson article. They fit in gracefully, and I should have covered that angle more completely when I wrote it. Here's a question. Georgism was and is often criticised as being 'one-dimensional': with its single-minded concentration on the Single Tax, it never managed to form coherent positions on the other issues of the day. Is that wrong? Tom L. was perhaps the most prominent Georgist to attain office in America, so it seems important to track down just what his Georgism meant in practice, in the everyday business of municipal government. Can you help with this?

Michael Pauls (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)