Talk:2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:21, 26 March 2010 editPhyschim62 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers33,631 edits →Causes?: comment← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:28, 8 April 2010 edit undoJ.R. Hercules (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,874 edits →Causes?Next edit →
Line 58:		Line 58:
	::::Additionally, as I stated on your talk page, this article is a very technical one, you will notice nothing of politics or economic theory in that article. Consider the section you keep editing (causes): every other section deals with specific causes and effects: Icelandic banks upload debt, then cannot refinance, or the Krona becomes overvalued and suffers carry trading. These are are cold facts and the article refrains from editorializing. Your edits, in contrast, are vague and editorial in nature, "The nation is settling scores with neoliberalism", "number of writers have linked Iceland's woes ..", linked in what way? What neoliberal policies? Every other part of the article strives to explain specifics, your edits avoid real explanation.		::::Additionally, as I stated on your talk page, this article is a very technical one, you will notice nothing of politics or economic theory in that article. Consider the section you keep editing (causes): every other section deals with specific causes and effects: Icelandic banks upload debt, then cannot refinance, or the Krona becomes overvalued and suffers carry trading. These are are cold facts and the article refrains from editorializing. Your edits, in contrast, are vague and editorial in nature, "The nation is settling scores with neoliberalism", "number of writers have linked Iceland's woes ..", linked in what way? What neoliberal policies? Every other part of the article strives to explain specifics, your edits avoid real explanation.
	::::Simply adding more editorials as citations does nothing to address my concerns. Especially considering the fact that the opinion articles you added (and they are opinion articles) dont even support the claims being made. Again, I ask you to respond to my discussion here in a meaningful way and not just revert. ] (]) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)		::::Simply adding more editorials as citations does nothing to address my concerns. Especially considering the fact that the opinion articles you added (and they are opinion articles) dont even support the claims being made. Again, I ask you to respond to my discussion here in a meaningful way and not just revert. ] (]) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
			::::::It is you who is "reverting", as you persist in deleting well-sourced material.

			Statement: ''"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal and laissez-faire economic policies starting in the 1990s."''

			Support: About 7 or 8 references.

			Fact: It doesn't matter one whit if you agree with the writers or not or if like what they say or not: the fact remains that there has been voluminous public discussion on the matter, and the section points simply this out and provides proper references as support. It will be interesting to see how you justify your reasoning in deleting the material during arbitration. ] (]) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::::The line is useless because 1) it doesn't suggest ''which'' "neo-liberal economic policies" were to blame and 2) it is just a glib swipe at one political philosophy. Let's take the proximate cause of the ''kreppa'', that Icelandic banks borrowed far too much money which then then couldn't pay back. Now the banking system was deregulated in the early 1990s, does this mean that the deregulation was the cause of the crisis? If so, why did Iceland suffer so much worse than other countries? The Icelandic banks could never have grown so large without the EEA Agreement: does that mean that the EEA Agreement is the cause of the financial crisis? Why did Norway – which also deregulated its banks and joined the EEA at the same time of Iceland – not suffer a financial crisis on the scale of Iceland's? The line is simply vacuous on these matters, a kind of intellectual opium to persuade people that it was all the fault of the big bad neo-libs and that everything would be OK if we just stuck them all up against a wall and started shooting. "Unencyclopedic" doesn't even start to convey what is wrong with the sentence! ] ] 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)		:::::The line is useless because 1) it doesn't suggest ''which'' "neo-liberal economic policies" were to blame and 2) it is just a glib swipe at one political philosophy. Let's take the proximate cause of the ''kreppa'', that Icelandic banks borrowed far too much money which then then couldn't pay back. Now the banking system was deregulated in the early 1990s, does this mean that the deregulation was the cause of the crisis? If so, why did Iceland suffer so much worse than other countries? The Icelandic banks could never have grown so large without the EEA Agreement: does that mean that the EEA Agreement is the cause of the financial crisis? Why did Norway – which also deregulated its banks and joined the EEA at the same time of Iceland – not suffer a financial crisis on the scale of Iceland's? The line is simply vacuous on these matters, a kind of intellectual opium to persuade people that it was all the fault of the big bad neo-libs and that everything would be OK if we just stuck them all up against a wall and started shooting. "Unencyclopedic" doesn't even start to convey what is wrong with the sentence! ] ] 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:28, 8 April 2010

2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 11, 2008.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iceland High‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Timeline Tracer (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Timeline TracerWikipedia:WikiProject Timeline TracerTemplate:WikiProject Timeline TracerTimeline Tracer

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Out of date

Many sections of this article are out of date; they only offer the viewpoint at around December 2008 at the latest. See e.g. the Development section. It ends by saying that IMF approved a loan to Iceland in November, but the crisis has evolved greatly since then. The Bank restructuring section has similar issues. The article barely mentions the socioeconomic effects of the financial crisis upon the Icelandic people, although these are among the most direct consequences of the crisis. Or should there be a separate article on the consequent 2008-2009 Icelandic economic crisis? 85.220.55.19 (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Rename, 2009 to 2010

I don't think that there will be any objections, but I believe this page should be renamed "2007-2010", as the crisis is still underway. Nigtv (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

2008-2010 seems reasonable but how about simply Icelandic financial crisis? Haukur (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

or Post-2008 economy of Iceland? Physchim62 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Causes?

The section entitled 'causes' contains the following line

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal economic policies starting in the 1990s."

Toby Sanger. "Iceland's Economic Meltdown Is a Big Flashing Warning Sign | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet". Archived from the original on 2009-07-24. Retrieved 2009-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Max Keiser. "Max Keiser: Who Could Have Predicted Revolution in Iceland?". Archived from the original on 2009-07-24. Retrieved 2009-07-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I find this line to be highly dubious for at least two reasons. First, it varies from the rest of the article with the hedging line "A number of writers have linked" whereas the rest of the article deals with statements of fact. The reason for this is also reason number two why I have a problem with this statement, its citations are not only both to editorials, which are expressly forbidden by RS, but they link back to alternet and huffington post, neither of which I would call reliable for matters economic. I am going to remove that sentence for those reasons. Bonewah (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove cited sources. They are also not "editorials"; please look up the definition of "editorial". J.R. Hercules (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The line is useless and should be removed. What are "neo-liberal economic policies", for example. We can do far better than this, and from more reliable sources. Physchim62 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The line is useless... "Useless" in what way? It sums up the content of the links. What would be a more "useful" line to employ -- "A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the level...of mercury in Iceland's waters"? "...to the volcanic activity within Iceland?" "...to the average number of children in Icelandic families?" Please explain precisely what you mean by "the line is useless".

What are "neo-liberal economic policies", for example? Apparently weren't able to figure out how to use your mouse to click on any of the links; you could have then read the pieces, and discovered the answer for yourself. Or, possibly, you don't know how to do a simple search for the words "neo-liberal" in the WP search engine. However, you can simply click on this link and have your answer. J.R. Hercules (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that this statement is 'cited' means nothing. As I said before, neither the Huffington Post nor Alternet is a reliable source on economics, and in both cases, the article's are the (un-peer reviewed, un-scientific) opinion of some guy. Consider the consequences of allowing this type of speculation in this article:

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal economic policies starting in the 1990s.

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nations failure to more thoroughly adopt neo-liberal economic policies.

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nations currency peg with the Euro"

"A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to George Soros.

All of those statements can be sourced to someone, if the only qualification for inclusion is that someone have an opinion and a cite somewhere on the internet. If we are going to include the speculations of some random guy on alternet, why stop there? Why not include the speculations of every random guy anywhere? The answer should be obvious, articles need to be more than "person 1 believes X, person 2 believes Y, person 3 believes Z". We need to establish that any given person's opinion is relevant and important to the subject at hand. Bonewah (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, as I stated on your talk page, this article is a very technical one, you will notice nothing of politics or economic theory in that article. Consider the section you keep editing (causes): every other section deals with specific causes and effects: Icelandic banks upload debt, then cannot refinance, or the Krona becomes overvalued and suffers carry trading. These are are cold facts and the article refrains from editorializing. Your edits, in contrast, are vague and editorial in nature, "The nation is settling scores with neoliberalism", "number of writers have linked Iceland's woes ..", linked in what way? What neoliberal policies? Every other part of the article strives to explain specifics, your edits avoid real explanation.

Simply adding more editorials as citations does nothing to address my concerns. Especially considering the fact that the opinion articles you added (and they are opinion articles) dont even support the claims being made. Again, I ask you to respond to my discussion here in a meaningful way and not just revert. Bonewah (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is "reverting", as you persist in deleting well-sourced material.

Statement: "A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal and laissez-faire economic policies starting in the 1990s."

Support: About 7 or 8 references.

Fact: It doesn't matter one whit if you agree with the writers or not or if like what they say or not: the fact remains that there has been voluminous public discussion on the matter, and the section points simply this out and provides proper references as support. It will be interesting to see how you justify your reasoning in deleting the material during arbitration. J.R. Hercules (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The line is useless because 1) it doesn't suggest which "neo-liberal economic policies" were to blame and 2) it is just a glib swipe at one political philosophy. Let's take the proximate cause of the kreppa, that Icelandic banks borrowed far too much money which then then couldn't pay back. Now the banking system was deregulated in the early 1990s, does this mean that the deregulation was the cause of the crisis? If so, why did Iceland suffer so much worse than other countries? The Icelandic banks could never have grown so large without the EEA Agreement: does that mean that the EEA Agreement is the cause of the financial crisis? Why did Norway – which also deregulated its banks and joined the EEA at the same time of Iceland – not suffer a financial crisis on the scale of Iceland's? The line is simply vacuous on these matters, a kind of intellectual opium to persuade people that it was all the fault of the big bad neo-libs and that everything would be OK if we just stuck them all up against a wall and started shooting. "Unencyclopedic" doesn't even start to convey what is wrong with the sentence! Physchim62 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories: