Talk:Tobin tax/Archive 3

809:

same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."

1748: 31: 1020:). The best evidence we have for his views is in the article I provided. To claim otherwise either on your own speculation or McQuaig's vague assertion is unacceptable. If you reread McQuaig's article you will find that she provides no context to allow us to evaluate her claim. This alone makes it suspect given what is known about Volcker's views. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ( 574:(The other possibility here, not having anything to do with McQuaig, is that Volcker changed his mind between December 13, 2009 (Reuters article) and February 9, 2010 (McQuaig's article). This seems unlikely given the short amount of time between these articles and the fact that he has had President Obama's ear during this period when the Volcker proposals were taking shape.) 562:"What a tragedy that, as this rare opportunity approaches, we are saddled with the small-minded, Bay Street-beholden Harper government. Will we be doomed again to watch the Harperites stage photo-ops of themselves, this time hugging the CN Tower and straddling cannons at Old Fort York, while the rest of the G20 struggles to rein in reckless financial markets?" 710:). If Volcker wishes to change his mind, he is free to do so at any time. It is not our place to speculate if or when he might do so. If he updates his views and makes them known to the general public through reliable sources, then we will make note of that in the appropriate spot in the article. That’s our job. Nothing more. 1465:

Here is my second logistical note: Like I said above, two heads are always better than one. By extension, this means that three heads are better than two, etc, etc. If there is a broader the range of input, then there is a better chance of coming to a compromise on this issue. So far my attempts at

985:

Instead of banning a source outright, it may be better to attach a note to the edit. For example when a Knowledge editor insisted on including a blatant untruth from an author named Cliff Kincaid, I simply responded by attaching a note to that blatant falsehood: Here is the note: .......According to

808:

and found this quote: "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the

566:

A cursory review of articles by McQuaig suggests she is incapable of writing anything without directly attacking people she doesn't like (typically people in right-of-center governments). She is clearly spinning this against a political party she disagrees with (I don't think "staging photo-ops" is a

845:

Unfortunately, telling an untruth is precisely what McQuaig has done. This is not a case of "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y"; it is a case of "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that John Smith argues Y". That's a crucial distinction. There are only two

211:

On second thought a more realistic approach is to name the section heading "Comparing evaluations of Currrency Transaction Tax and Financial Transaction tax." That approach is more realistic because it is so obvious that the two types of taxes have two different scopes: The Currency Transaction tax

137:

1. I have returned the quotation regarding the EU summit to the Concept section. I believe it is more appropriate here since it has direct bearing on the concept of a Tobin tax and I expect that this section will be amplified with additional material as more information surfaces regarding this idea.

1361:

attempts to inject speculation about Volcker's views into the discussion. McQuaig has already failed the test of providing exceptional evidence. Your point that we would have to prove that Volcker could not have changed his mind in between December and February is an example of idle speculation and

1339:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 1) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; 2) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously

1039:

687:

I noted that it was possible for Volcker to have changed his mind. I don’t think that he has since then he could have chosen to make a FTT part of his proposal to the President. However, that is just my opinion and that does not count for anything. The only things that do count are reliably sourced

398:

I have made some alterations in the order of the sections. A logical progression for this article is as follows: 1) concepts; 2) evaluation; 3) implementation. The new ordering is consistent with this framework. There may be issues with connectedness due to the change but this will be ironed out in

827:

sides of the political spectrum. (That is probably done to stir readers to write in, start a discussion, create a buzz, thereby causing more papers to be sold.) I am accustomed to seeing this from all sides of the political spectrum. Yet, despite that common culture of writing styles, it is still

1646:

My question was not a personal attack. I simply wanted to know what made that particular author so important to this particular article. It was a reasonable question given the discussion. I am sorry you felt that it was a personal attack. I do not see why that would be and I apologize if you felt

1069:

As for the issue of peer review, you seem to have a mistaken view of what this entails. Peer reviews are not sympathetic persons writing kind blurbs to be printed on the backs of books. I suggest you read up on the process of how peer review works in scientific journals. By that standard, nothing

94:

There is a difference between hypothetical "effects" and "effects" that have already been experienced. In the text of the article the distinction between these two types of "effects" should be made more clear. I suggest that we use a completely different word for the two types of "effects." Some

1560:

The implication by "The Four Deuces" is that we should take each piece of writing on a case by case basis rather than banning a writer from ever again being "used" in Knowledge "in the future." (The words "used .... in the future" are part of the proposal in the first entry into this particular

1461:

I will conclude with two logistical notes: First, I am combining this discussion with the above discussion entitled, "Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig." My reason for doing so is because this discussion quotes the earlier discussion. This might be confusing for readers who are following.

1154:, said he "instinctively opposed" any tax on financial transactions. "But it may be worthwhile to look into the current proposals as long as the result is not predetermined. That would at least end all this renewed talk about the idea, but overall I am skeptical about these ideas." 864:: If this is the case, then McQuaig is a biased journalist. It need not be something as clear as outright lying. Maybe she really believed what she was writing. However, it then becomes an issue of her not bothering to check facts when the facts she believes support her position. 344:

into this particular article, this is detrimental to the objective of clarity. Clarity is so important on such an important issue. The article "Tobin tax" is already verging on being too long. If we try to explain yet another ambiguous eponym, the article will definitely be too

1719:

On a different topic, there is a reason I brought up the Knowledge policy quote which says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The reason was to only to present the quote -not to imply that I was being personally attacked. On the contrary, I try to assume

986:

Cliff Kincaid, Castro advocated the Tobin tax "specifically in order to generate U.S. financial reparations to the rest of the world," however a closer reading of Castro's speech shows that he never did mention "the rest of the world" as being recipients of revenue.

819:

Instead of discounting it outright, Knowledge policy suggests that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."

1466:

compromise appear to have failed. Please don't take this as an insult, but I feel that in order to come to agreement on this important issue, I feel that we need more input from more voices than just two. That is why I am posting this discussion on the

1290:. Knowledge, being the helpful community that it is, has provided this noticeboard so that we can get other editors opinions on this issue. With all due respect, I suggest that we bring this issue to the noticeboard before we delete every reference to 1537:

I thanked "The Four Deuces" for the help. I appreciate the insight. I will use this as a guide: For example, if a source is an editorial then I will try to describe it as such in a Knowledge article. Of course, this should apply equally to all sources.

369:

If we keep this up, we will have to start a separate page for a Knowledge "List" of all the eponyms that are related to financial transaction taxes (such as the ambiguous "Spahn tax" the "Volcker tax," etc. etc. etc.) Instead, I prefer using terms that

697:. This is an acceptable source on Christine Lagarde’s views since the author directly interviews her. It is not an acceptable source on Volcker’s views. For all we know, the author is simply referencing something he read in McQuaig’s earlier article. 1398:

I would like to focus attention on one of your statements: You stated, "Your point that we would have to prove that Volcker could not have changed his mind in between December and February is an example of idle speculation and is inappropriate."

355:

For the sake of clarity, we as editors of an encyclopedia, should be willing to sacrifice the peripheral phenomena which attach themselves to "the Tobin tax." Clarity is a part of the "precision" which is described in the Knowledge policy on

943:: You also said, "The only things that do count are reliably sourced statements that are directly attributable to Volcker." With all due respect I should point out that Knowledge policy allows for a broader range of sources than that. See 1277:

going through this explanation so that I can keep the Saunders (Feb 5) quote nor the McQuaig (Feb 9) quote in the "Tobin tax" article. In the above conversation I already thanked you for your discovery of the direct quote from Volcker.

1055:

I do not understand why this is a controversial issue for you. I have made reasonable points regarding problems with a source and made a simple request of other editors to use better sources in the future. Why is this such a difficult

1525:"Rather than ask if an individual is a reliable source, we should ask whether what they wrote is a reliable source. News articles are reliable sources for facts but editorials are only reliable sources for their writers views. 570:

I don't know which of these cases is true, but at least one of them must be. In either event, this suggests that McQuaig is unreliable and I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future.

1226:

With all due respect, I do not see a dramatic "red flag" here. McQuaig's comment is corroborated by Saunders comment, and Saunders comment is corroborated by McQuaig's comment. Both are published in "mainstream" sources: the

1581:

I hope you take The Four Deuces' remarks under advisement. There is little more that I can say without repeating what I have already written. I have repeatedly explained the issues and provided policy links to help guide you

1347:

Volcker's views were known prior to the McQuaig article. McQuaig was making an opposite claim to these views. This is a red flag and qualifies as an exceptional claim, thus requiring exceptional evidence. McQuaig provided no

975:

I admit that it is possible some of her statements may be proven false in the future. But until such time, we have no conclusive proof to ban references to her articles. I consider it a very serious step to deem a source as

1852: 1116: 186:

The question “Is there a difference between the CTT and FTT?” if answered, would then form a premise to evaluations of CTT and and evaluations of FTT. Questions of preceding premises should come first (for readability

306:

No, it is not appropriate to do so at this time. Knowledge is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox, advertising platform, or news repository on "events" of questionable significance. Please see the following policies:

1285:

reason I am carefully going through this is because you made the statement: "I would propose to other editors that she () not be used as a primary source in the future." I would like to draw your attention to

1305:

I am willing to live with the deletion of the Feb 5 and 9 writings. But it is a completely different situation to say "I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future."

1625:

which says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Even though I am human, and am not infallible, I have tried to follow that Knowledge policy. Please don't take this discussion personally. Thanks.

962:. She is a veteran journalist in the particular field of economics and business. She has written nine books which have been peer-reviewed (this is valued by Knowledge policy). One of those reviewers was 769:

As an aside, I titled this discussion "as time passes," because in the future it could be a place to discuss people other than Volcker. (I purposely prefaced my discussion of Volcker with the words, "for

95:

citations refer only to models and predictions. These should be made distinct from citations which record actual past events. Also the language of the article should reflect that important difference.

1104:

Thank you for your comments. After reading my last comment I can understand how you may have been confused by it. Therefore, I should clarify: Here is the sequence in which things happened:

567:

characteristic exclusive to any particular part of the political spectrum). Would she still be saying the same thing if it were left-of-center party members engaging in the same behavior?

141:

2. I moved some material down to the CTT evaluation section where it is more appropriate. I did not review it extensively at this time so I suggest that this be done at some future point.

237:

Even so, it is very unrealistic for a heading to imply that there is a 100% identical evaluation that can be applied to both phenomena. The implication is that a phenomenon related to

739:

I agree with your approach of using such quotes as the ultimate authority in cases when there are conflicting reports. But if you hadn’t found that direct quote, then I would have, in

1266:. The reporters covering it were not simply repeating what had happened almost two months earlier (McQuiag writes: "last weekend as he hosted the G7 finance ministers in Iqaluit." 1166:. The reporters covering it were not simply repeating what had happened almost two months earlier (McQuiag writes: "last weekend as he hosted the G7 finance ministers in Iqaluit." 1240: 1132: 1372:

4. The only thing I am confused about here is why you expend so much effort in defending McQuaig. Perhaps you would care to explain this. What makes her so indispensable to you?

551:: I was able to find a direct source on Volcker's views in a few minutes. If I am able to do this and McQuaig cannot then it casts serious doubt on her journalistic ability. 350:

Personally I believe that ambiguity is the biggest obstacle right now, in trying to explain to readers the 38 years of the history of society's ambiguous eponym "Tobin tax."

1367:

3. As for the Doug Sanders article, I have already stated that it can be used as a source for Christine Lagarde's views. It may not be used as a source for Volcker's views.

1250:

does not apply in this case. That Knowledge policy applies only in case when a prediction is made. Neither Saunders nor McQuaig Saunders were making predictions.

1405:

I have already given the example of Strauss-Kahn who took only one month to "soften his doubts." This example shows that my proposition is not "idle speculation."

1590:) but you do not seem to be paying attention. Just answer one question: Why is McQuaig so important to you? I think this is a relevant point in this discussion. 172:

I think we can all agree that the article will be more readable if there is a logical sequence in which readers encounter the various questions of evaluation.

291:

A rebranding of the Tobin Tax is starting to snowball across Twitter and Facebook. Should there be a section on this 'new' movement? www.robinhoodtax.org.uk

1408:

Our job as Knowledge editors is to draw upon sources, not to provide our own interpretation. Regardless of whether you or I think that the statements by

523: 374:, or at least attempt to describe, a phenomenon: For example, terms such as "currency transaction tax" are much less likely to fall prey to ambiguity. 533:

I would suggest that Linda McQuaig is an unreliable source. For example, in one article she claims that Paul Volcker is a transaction tax supporter (

1340:

defended...Exceptional claims in Knowledge require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

1040:

defended...Exceptional claims in Knowledge require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

1518: 1490: 1467: 1287: 1109: 632:

to look into financial sector taxes . . This is an interesting issue . . We will look at it from various angles and consider all proposals.""

869:

One of these cases must be true. In either case, McQuaig is unreliable. Knowledge is an encyclopedia and it needs better sources than this.

1395:

Thank you for your scrutiny of this very important issue. Scrutiny is healthy for pruning ideas. Two heads are always better than one.

828:

important not to tell an untruth. (Of course, an encyclopedic style of writing is very different from the columnist style of writing.)

911:

This is a proposal that is of a very serious nature, and it requires careful analysis before we ban all editors from using her again.

1113: 625: 503: 443:

The lead section "should...explain why the subject is...notable" <<That is a quote from this Knowledge policy .....here : -->

544:

There are two possibilities regarding what could have happened here with respect to McQuaig (not necessarily mutually exclusive):

1147: 1617:

Actually I have appreciated your help and all the links to Knowledge policies. (We are all learning about Knowledge policies in

1941: 1192: 270:

to "Evaluation of CTT" and "Evaluation of FTT." (Unlike a few days ago when it was placed as a subset of "Evaluation of CTT").

1541:

Also, according to "The Four Deuces" we cannot " in the future" label Linda McQuaig nor Doug Saunders as "unreliable sources"

694: 1622: 1443:. If you can find such a source, I would be happy to rest my case. But so far, I haven't seen such a source. Therefore, 1267: 1220: 1167: 534: 361: 1332:

policy does apply here and the chronology you have listed is completely unrelated to this. Some points from this policy:

1323:

Thank you for the lengthy response. However, please note that what you have written is unrelated to the issues I raised.

1108:

December 3, 2009 - 22 supporters of domestic financial transaction tax (within the US only) - 22 representatives in the

688:

statements that are directly attributable to Volcker. The December article provides this. The February article does not.

462: 181:

both "the evaluation of the CTT" and "the evaluation of the FTT." My proposal is supported by the following rationale:

1828: 1721: 1618: 748: 740: 633: 621: 192:

Therefore I am moving the section "Is there a difference between the CTT and FTT?" to an earlier place in the article.

1706:

In the discussion below, I have admitted my error: I should have pressed "Show preview" before I pressed "Save page."

1207:): "Even the U.S., which had been resisting, now seems willing to at least consider it, after former central banker 927:

possible for Volcker to have changed his views between December and February. But you have already admitted that it

248:

So a more realistic heading is "Comparing evaluations of Currrency Transaction Tax and Financial Transaction tax."

1755: 38: 463:

If references don't mention the words "Tobin tax" -- Should their content be a priority in this very long article?

1530: 488: 164: 730:

Greetings Cosmic Cube: Thank you for doing the extra research in finding a quote directly from Volcker himself.

537:). She provides no support for this assertion. However, a Reuters article shows that Volcker opposes this idea ( 1798: 1793: 1781: 1776: 492: 357: 312: 81: 76: 64: 59: 855:: If this is the case, then McQuaig is a sloppy journalist (and by extension so are the Toronto Star editors). 216:, whereas the Financial Transaction tax scope encompasses much more: It encompasses the much broader scope of 1455: 1448: 1424: 944: 805: 706:

our job to allow for the possibility of individuals to change their minds. Knowledge is not a crystal ball (

510: 107: 1724:. (In keeping with good citation policies, I had no choice except to provide the source of that quote.) - 1561:

discussion. Cosmic Cube proposed "to other editors that not be used as a primary source in the future.")

812:

The particular McQuaig article you are referred to in the above (previous) discussion is published by the

471: 445: 467:

If references don't mention the words "Tobin tax" -- Should their content be a priority in this article?

432:

The fact that Tobin was a Nobel Laureate is "notable" according to Knowledge requirement for lead section

1810: 1729: 1692: 1669: 1634: 1599: 1571: 1505: 1477: 1381: 1313: 1087: 999: 877: 835: 792: 718: 677: 596: 581: 519: 453: 421: 406: 383: 326: 277: 259:

importance that "Evaluation of CTT" and "Evaluation of FTT," and should therefore appear after the two.

201: 148: 117: 1688: 1665: 1595: 1377: 1083: 873: 714: 577: 402: 322: 144: 1605: 1587: 1526: 1354: 1259: 1247: 1017: 707: 308: 1416:

are implausible, our opinions do not matter. Our job is simply to bring sources into Knowledge.

448:

Therefore, please do not delete this "notable" fact about the author of the Tobin tax. Thank you -

296: 1945: 1258:

wrote the word "sees" which is present tense. There is no prediction here. Therefore the use of

1016:

I reiterate. It is not our place to speculate on whether or not Volcker has changed his views (

902:

that "I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future."

1891: 1583: 1329: 1021: 316: 487:

That content should be placed in more appropriate Knowledge articles, such as the following:

1806: 1725: 1630: 1567: 1501: 1473: 1309: 995: 831: 788: 673: 592: 515: 449: 417: 379: 273: 197: 113: 1491:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_Sources.3F:_Doug_Saunders_and_Linda_McQuaig

695:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-tobin-tax-the-outr-is-back-in/article1458027

556:

McQuaig is biased (and, thus, willing to be loose with the facts when it comes to her bias)

1904: 1832: 613: 416:

I distinguished your heading for this discussion from the other one named "editing notes"

234:

types of interchangeable lessons that can be learned. I don't exclude that possibility.

103: 90:

The difference between hypothetical effects and effects that have already been experienced

484:

priorities is the content of references which do not even contain the words "Tobin tax."

1564:

I agree with "The Four Deuces" that a "case-by-case basis" is a more rational approach.

255:

premise to "Evaluation of CTT" and "Evaluation of FTT." In fact, then the section is of

1919: 1764: 1228: 1180: 1155: 747:. Why? Because Saunders was covering a new event: the meeting in Canada. Therefore, in 667: 538: 535:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/762427--mcquaig-tory-chill-freezes-out-tobin-tax

437: 292: 47: 17: 474:. An editor, other than myself, has already tagged this article as being "very long." 1937: 1554: 1550: 1440: 1436: 1413: 1409: 1295: 1291: 1262:

does not apply in this case. On Feb 4 and 5, there was a meeting in Canada which was

1255: 1251: 1200: 1176: 959: 899: 744: 1142:

On December 13, 2009 Michael Sheilds wrote the selected quotes in this paragraph: -

177:

I propose that the question "Is there a difference between the CTT and FTT?" should

1236: 1232: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1188: 1184: 1151: 1143: 1128: 963: 813: 650: 1876:"Pelosi Endorses 'Global' Tax on Stocks, Bonds, and other Financial Transactions" 1763:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1549:-- they are writing an article instead of an editorial. The Feb 5 writing from 1814: 1733: 1696: 1673: 1638: 1609: 1575: 1509: 1481: 1385: 1317: 1091: 1003: 881: 839: 796: 722: 681: 600: 585: 457: 425: 410: 387: 330: 300: 281: 230:

similarities in the evaluations of the two. It seems probable that there are

205: 152: 121: 1419:

If we would do that task without injecting our own interpretation, then all

496: 138:

We can figure out later how to organize this, perhaps by using subsections.

1470:. The title will be: Reliable Sources?: Doug Saunders and Linda McQuaig. 1875: 1135: 649:

Therefore we must allow for this possibility in others also. For example

238: 220: 213: 477:

Therefore we must set priorities as to what to include in this article.

1923: 1853:"DEFAZIO INTRODUCES LEGISLATION INVOKING WALL STREET 'TRANSACTION TAX'" 1298:

in the "Tobin tax" article. I suggest that this action should be taken

666:

Also we must address the question of what is a reliable source: Is the

242: 653:

may have changed his mind between December, 2009 and February 2010.

1431:

change his mind between December and February. There are no sources

1215:'s key adviser on financial reform, pushing aside Treasury Secretary 341: 751:, I assumed that he had new information coming from that new event. 1219:. Geithner is hostile to the tax; Volcker sees some merit in it." 98:

The fact that the consequences are unknown stands as a caution to

1402:

I respectfully disagree with that particular statement of yours:

624:, Mr Strauss-Kahn seems to have softened his doubts, telling the 134:

Here is some additional information on edits made on this page:

823:

A provocative style of writing is common among columnists from

1742: 931:

possible that Volcker may have changed his views in that time.

629: 617: 25: 1243:

indicated support for a "G20 ... financial transaction tax."

1191:'s dramatic banking-reform proposals, spoke in its favour." 470:

The article is getting too long: See this Knowledge policy:

693:

As for the Globe and Mail, I believe you are referring to:

1827:

Tobin tax remains Treasury ambition (December 11, 2009).

1621:.) The "relevancy" of your last question is addressed by 806:

this Knowledge policy about on the reliability of sources

1254:

wrote in the past tense when he used the word "spoke."

1162:

On Feb 4 and 5, there was a meeting in Canada which was

923:: The only way that McQuaig is proven false is if it is 616:

reported the following: "Since the Nov 7 summit of the

436:

To the person who is deleting the fact that Tobin was a

1920:"Volcker finds British bonus tax "interesting": report" 1070:

McQuaig has written has ever come close to peer review.

661: 657: 646:

It is possible that this can happen to others as well.

541:) and they are able to quote him directly as evidence. 336:

Clarity and precision are crucial. If we introduce yet

1273:

Why am I going through all of this so carefully? I am

958:: I should also draw your attention to the article on 1241:

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

1133:

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

607:"Opposers" can "soften their doubts" as time passes 539:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BC0MH20091213

360:" Therefore I, personally am willing to sacrifice 226:Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that there are 1489:You may link to the notice board discussion here: 628:employers' conference: "We have been asked by the 509:Supporting my proposal is this Knowledge policy: 241:is 100% identical to a phenomenon related to all 262:Nevertheless, it should still have a hierarchy 1553:was an editorial, and the Feb 9 writing from 760:Thank you again for your clarifying research. 8: 558:: Here is a quote from McQuaig's article: 1187:, the influential mind behind President 1127:financial transaction tax in the "G20": 945:Knowledge:Verifiability#Reliable_sources 251:In that case, the section need not be a 1819: 1900: 1889: 1761:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1519:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1468:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1288:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1110:United States House of Representatives 102:sides of the debate against using the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1918:Michael Sheilds (December 13, 2009). 1829:"Tobin tax remains Treasury ambition" 1521:, the following response was posted: 1517:After posting this discussion on the 7: 1681:See further discussion below in the 816:, Canada's largest daily newspaper. 620:Finance Ministers , the head of the 1942:"A Tobin tax? The outré is back in" 743:, trusted the prominent journalist 480:Therefore I propose that among our 1451:that Volcker did change his mind. 24: 1114:DeFazio financial transaction tax 804:Just out of curiosity, I checked 504:DeFazio financial transaction tax 1874:Matt Cover (December 07, 2009). 1746: 1533:) 18:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)" 1435:which contradict the sources of 1148:Economic Recovery Advisory Board 1123:December 7, 2009 - Supporter of 1024:). Some points from this policy: 549:McQuaig is a mediocre journalist 529:Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig 29: 846:possibilities for her behavior: 779:Thanks again for your research. 167:, which is akin to readability. 1302:any further deletions occur. 639:Notice that Strauss-Kahn took 362:this legitimate press coverage 1: 1734:15:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) 1697:06:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) 1674:21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 1639:20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 1610:20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 1576:20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 1510:18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 1482:18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 1386:15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 1318:13:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 1092:05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC) 1004:23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 882:05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 840:20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 797:20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 723:02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 682:01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 601:20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 586:00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 524:20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) 458:18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 426:16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 411:14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 388:00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 364:of the word "Robin Hood tax." 331:07:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 301:04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 282:23:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 206:15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 153:07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 122:21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 622:International Monetary Fund 1973: 1855:. Website of Peter DeFazio 612:On December 11, 2009, the 163:Knowledge has a policy on 131:Greetings fellow editors, 1815:21:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1203:wrote this (published by 1179:wrote this (published by 643:to "soften his doubts." 489:financial transaction tax 165:the clarity of an article 853:She did this unknowingly 493:currency transaction tax 313:Knowledge:NOTADVERTISING 1456:Theory of justification 1445:all presently available 1423:evidence points to the 1392:Greetings Cosmic Cube: 1353:2. My reference to the 1101:Greetings Cosmic Cube: 511:Knowledge:Verifiability 108:argument from ignorance 1899:Check date values in: 1535: 1342: 1042: 889:Greetings Cosmic Cube: 862:She did this knowingly 670:an unreliable source? 564: 472:Knowledge:Article size 446:Knowledge:Lead_section 1759:of past discussions. 1623:this Knowledge policy 1523: 1357:policy is related to 1337: 1235:. Two months earlier 1146:, chairman of the US 1037: 591:See below discussion 560: 42:of past discussions. 1940:(February 5, 2010). 1647:that to be the case. 1447:sources support the 1211:recently emerged as 309:Knowledge:NOTSOAPBOX 1557:was an editorial. 1946:The Globe and Mail 1449:justifiable belief 1425:justifiable belief 702:As editors, it is 399:future revisions. 358:deciding on a name 1804: 1803: 1771: 1770: 1765:current talk page 1362:is inappropriate. 1112:supported the US 394:Editing notes (2) 317:Knowledge:NOTNEWS 127:Editing notes (1) 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1964: 1957: 1956: 1954: 1952: 1934: 1928: 1927: 1915: 1909: 1908: 1902: 1897: 1895: 1887: 1885: 1883: 1871: 1865: 1864: 1862: 1860: 1849: 1843: 1842: 1840: 1839: 1824: 1790: 1773: 1772: 1750: 1749: 1743: 1613: 1199:On Feb 9, 2010, 1150:under President 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1950: 1948: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1917: 1916: 1912: 1898: 1888: 1881: 1879: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1858: 1856: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1837: 1835: 1833:Financial Times 1826: 1825: 1821: 1786: 1747: 1683:Talk Page edits 1603: 1527:The Four Deuces 1175:On Feb 5, 2010 614:Financial Times 531: 465: 434: 396: 289: 129: 104:logical fallacy 92: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1970: 1968: 1959: 1958: 1929: 1910: 1866: 1844: 1818: 1802: 1801: 1796: 1791: 1784: 1779: 1769: 1768: 1751: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1615: 1614: 1608:comment added 1592: 1591: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1391: 1389: 1388: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1350: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1334: 1333: 1325: 1324: 1229:Globe and Mail 1224: 1223: 1196: 1195: 1181:Globe and Mail 1172: 1171: 1159: 1158: 1139: 1138: 1120: 1119: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 990: 989: 988: 987: 980: 979: 978: 977: 970: 969: 968: 967: 950: 949: 948: 947: 935: 934: 933: 932: 915: 914: 913: 912: 906: 905: 904: 903: 893: 892: 891: 890: 871: 870: 866: 865: 857: 856: 848: 847: 802: 801: 800: 799: 783: 782: 781: 780: 774: 773: 772: 771: 764: 763: 762: 761: 755: 754: 753: 752: 734: 733: 732: 731: 712: 711: 699: 698: 690: 689: 668:Globe and Mail 641:only one month 637: 636: 604: 603: 530: 527: 499:, and now the 464: 461: 438:Nobel Laureate 433: 430: 429: 428: 395: 392: 391: 390: 376: 375: 366: 365: 352: 351: 347: 346: 288: 287:Robin Hood Tax 285: 209: 208: 194: 193: 189: 188: 183: 182: 174: 173: 169: 168: 160: 159: 158:Greetings all: 128: 125: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 18:Talk:Tobin tax 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1969: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1938:Doug Saunders 1933: 1930: 1925: 1921: 1914: 1911: 1906: 1893: 1878:. CNSNews.com 1877: 1870: 1867: 1854: 1848: 1845: 1834: 1830: 1823: 1820: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1800: 1797: 1795: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1752: 1745: 1744: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1684: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1627: 1624: 1620: 1611: 1607: 1601: 1597: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1588:WP:NOTCRYSTAL 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1558: 1556: 1555:Linda McQuaig 1552: 1551:Doug Saunders 1548: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1532: 1528: 1522: 1520: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1469: 1463: 1459: 1457: 1452: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441:Doug Saunders 1438: 1437:Linda McQuaig 1434: 1430: 1427:that Volcker 1426: 1422: 1417: 1415: 1414:Doug Saunders 1411: 1410:Linda McQuaig 1406: 1403: 1400: 1396: 1393: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1360: 1356: 1355:WP:NOTCRYSTAL 1352: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1341: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1301: 1297: 1296:Doug Saunders 1293: 1292:Linda McQuaig 1289: 1284: 1279: 1276: 1271: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1260:WP:NOTCRYSTAL 1257: 1256:Linda McQuaig 1253: 1252:Doug Saunders 1249: 1248:WP:NOTCRYSTAL 1244: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201:Linda McQuaig 1198: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1177:Doug Saunders 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1125:international 1122: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1023: 1019: 1018:WP:NOTCRYSTAL 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1005: 1001: 997: 994: 993: 992: 991: 984: 983: 982: 981: 976:"unreliable." 974: 973: 972: 971: 965: 961: 960:Linda McQuaig 957: 954: 953: 952: 951: 946: 942: 939: 938: 937: 936: 930: 926: 922: 919: 918: 917: 916: 910: 909: 908: 907: 901: 900:Linda McQuaig 897: 896: 895: 894: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 879: 875: 868: 867: 863: 859: 858: 854: 850: 849: 844: 843: 842: 841: 837: 833: 829: 826: 821: 817: 815: 810: 807: 798: 794: 790: 787: 786: 785: 784: 778: 777: 776: 775: 768: 767: 766: 765: 759: 758: 757: 756: 750: 746: 745:Doug Saunders 742: 738: 737: 736: 735: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 720: 716: 709: 708:WP:NOTCRYSTAL 705: 701: 700: 696: 692: 691: 686: 685: 684: 683: 679: 675: 671: 669: 664: 663: 659: 654: 652: 647: 644: 642: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610: 609: 608: 602: 598: 594: 590: 589: 588: 587: 583: 579: 575: 572: 568: 563: 559: 557: 552: 550: 545: 542: 540: 536: 528: 526: 525: 521: 517: 513: 512: 507: 505: 502: 498: 494: 490: 485: 483: 478: 475: 473: 468: 460: 459: 455: 451: 447: 441: 439: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 414: 413: 412: 408: 404: 400: 393: 389: 385: 381: 378: 377: 373: 368: 367: 363: 359: 354: 353: 349: 348: 343: 339: 335: 334: 333: 332: 328: 324: 320: 318: 314: 310: 304: 302: 298: 294: 286: 284: 283: 279: 275: 271: 269: 265: 260: 258: 254: 249: 246: 244: 240: 235: 233: 229: 224: 222: 219: 215: 207: 203: 199: 196: 195: 191: 190: 185: 184: 180: 176: 175: 171: 170: 166: 162: 161: 157: 156: 155: 154: 150: 146: 142: 139: 135: 132: 126: 124: 123: 119: 115: 111: 109: 105: 101: 96: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1949:. Retrieved 1932: 1913: 1880:. Retrieved 1869: 1857:. Retrieved 1847: 1836:. Retrieved 1822: 1805: 1787: 1760: 1754: 1687: 1682: 1680: 1628: 1616: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1546: 1542: 1540: 1536: 1524: 1516: 1472: 1464: 1460: 1453: 1444: 1432: 1428: 1420: 1418: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1358: 1338: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1282: 1280: 1274: 1272: 1263: 1246:Your use of 1245: 1237:Nancy Pelosi 1233:Toronto Star 1225: 1217:Tim Geithner 1213:Barack Obama 1209:Paul Volcker 1205:Toronto Star 1189:Barack Obama 1185:Paul Volcker 1163: 1152:Barack Obama 1144:Paul Volcker 1129:Nancy Pelosi 1124: 1103: 1100: 1038: 964:Noam Chomsky 955: 941:Second point 940: 928: 924: 920: 898:You said of 872: 861: 852: 830: 824: 822: 818: 814:Toronto Star 811: 803: 713: 703: 672: 665: 655: 651:Paul Volcker 648: 645: 640: 638: 606: 605: 576: 573: 569: 565: 561: 555: 553: 548: 546: 543: 532: 514: 508: 500: 486: 481: 479: 476: 469: 466: 442: 435: 401: 397: 371: 337: 321: 305: 290: 272: 267: 263: 261: 256: 252: 250: 247: 236: 231: 227: 225: 217: 210: 178: 143: 140: 136: 133: 130: 112: 99: 97: 93: 70: 43: 37: 1951:11 February 1882:13 February 1859:13 February 1807:Boyd Reimer 1753:This is an 1726:Boyd Reimer 1689:Cosmic Cube 1666:Cosmic Cube 1631:Boyd Reimer 1604:—Preceding 1596:Cosmic Cube 1568:Boyd Reimer 1502:Boyd Reimer 1474:Boyd Reimer 1378:Cosmic Cube 1310:Boyd Reimer 1084:Cosmic Cube 996:Boyd Reimer 921:First point 874:Cosmic Cube 832:Boyd Reimer 789:Boyd Reimer 715:Cosmic Cube 674:Boyd Reimer 593:Boyd Reimer 578:Cosmic Cube 516:Boyd Reimer 450:Boyd Reimer 418:Boyd Reimer 403:Cosmic Cube 380:Boyd Reimer 323:Cosmic Cube 274:Boyd Reimer 212:focuses on 198:Boyd Reimer 145:Cosmic Cube 114:Boyd Reimer 36:This is an 1838:2009-12-29 1722:good faith 1629:Peace, - 1619:good faith 1584:WP:REDFLAG 1330:WP:REDFLAG 1022:WP:REDFLAG 770:example.") 749:good faith 741:good faith 634:see source 340:ambiguous 303:weavehole 187:purposes). 1799:Archive 5 1794:Archive 4 1788:Archive 3 1782:Archive 2 1777:Archive 1 1685:section. 1543:for facts 1348:evidence. 662:this edit 658:this edit 497:Spahn tax 293:Weavehole 266:which is 253:preceding 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1892:cite web 1656:Regards, 1231:and the 656:Compare 372:describe 239:currency 221:finances 214:currency 1924:Reuters 1756:archive 1606:undated 1421:sourced 1328:1. The 338:another 243:finance 179:precede 39:archive 1901:|date= 1300:before 1268:source 1221:source 1193:source 1168:source 1156:source 1136:source 1117:source 1056:thing? 342:eponym 257:lesser 1183:): " 956:Third 482:lower 444:: --> 345:long. 268:equal 264:level 16:< 1953:2010 1905:help 1884:2010 1861:2010 1811:talk 1730:talk 1693:talk 1670:talk 1635:talk 1600:talk 1586:and 1572:talk 1531:talk 1506:talk 1478:talk 1454:See 1439:nor 1412:and 1382:talk 1359:your 1314:talk 1283:only 1281:The 1088:talk 1000:talk 878:talk 836:talk 793:talk 719:talk 678:talk 660:and 597:talk 582:talk 520:talk 454:talk 422:talk 407:talk 384:talk 327:talk 297:talk 278:talk 245:. 232:some 202:talk 149:talk 118:talk 106:of " 1602:) 1545:-- 1433:yet 1429:did 1294:or 1275:not 1264:new 1164:new 925:not 860:2. 851:1. 825:all 704:not 630:G20 626:CBI 618:G20 554:2. 547:1. 501:new 223:. 218:all 110:". 100:all 1944:. 1922:. 1896:: 1894:}} 1890:{{ 1831:. 1813:) 1732:) 1695:) 1672:) 1637:) 1574:) 1547:if 1508:) 1480:) 1458:. 1384:) 1316:) 1270:) 1239:, 1131:, 1090:) 1002:) 929:is 880:) 838:) 795:) 721:) 680:) 599:) 584:) 522:) 506:. 495:, 491:, 456:) 440:: 424:) 409:) 386:) 329:) 319:. 315:, 311:, 299:) 280:) 228:no 204:) 151:) 120:) 1955:. 1926:. 1907:) 1903:( 1886:. 1863:. 1841:. 1809:( 1767:. 1728:( 1691:( 1668:( 1633:( 1612:. 1598:( 1582:( 1570:( 1529:( 1504:( 1476:( 1380:( 1312:( 1170:) 1086:( 998:( 966:. 876:( 834:( 791:( 717:( 676:( 595:( 580:( 518:( 452:( 420:( 405:( 382:( 356:" 325:( 295:( 276:( 200:( 147:( 116:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index