User talk:Social Credit/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Initial Creation
2 Continued Revisions
3 Questions of administration, article organization, math
4 Internal links and more math questions
5 More citations needed
6 BEYOND SOCIAL CREDIT?
7 Completion

[edit] Initial Creation

Hi Jim. Hi Wally. This is where we begin to learn how to do it. Hope to see you here soon. I'll check back here tomorrow to see how you're doing. David Kendall (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes: 10:06 PM 2/27/2008

1) What is the publisher's name for "Credit-Power and Democracy"? (Melbourne: The Social Credit Press, Australian Edition, March, 1933) CHECK David Kendall (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

2) What is the volume and issue of The Social Crediter, Feb 8, 1947? (Liverpool: K. R. P. Publications Ltd., Vol. 17, No. 23) CHECK David Kendall (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

3) What is the volume and issue of The Social Crediter, August 28/September 4-11, 1948? (Liverpool: K. R. P. Publications Ltd., Vol. 20, No. 26; Vol. 21, Nos. 1,2) CHECK David Kendall (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

David Kendall (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes: 6:30 AM 3/1/2008

5) Need the publisher, location, and ISBN for "Economic Democracy," Fifth (Authorised) Edition" (Epsom, Surrey, England: Bloomfield Publishers, 1974, p. 29) CHECK David Kendall (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes: 9:11 PM 2/28/2008

4) In the "Economic Theory" section, the following statement references "page 90" of some document. What document does this refer to? What was the name of the document? The Douglas System of Social Credit, Evidence taken by the Agricultural Committee of the Alberta Legislature, Session 1934 (Edmonton: The Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 1934) David Kendall (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

8) In the section, "Critics to A+B and Rebuttal", there is a reference to "p.90". Page 90 of what? David Kendall (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (See No. 4 above--same document.)

I'm sorry. I still don't understand. Is this a document? What sort of document is it? Is it an address (speech) delivered by Douglas? What sort of publication is it? Who is the publisher? What is the event? Please provide more detail, so this reference can be cited properly. Thank you. David Kendall (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

David, re the document: The document is just as described. It is an official Alberta Government publication printed in 1934 by the King's Printer in Edmonton by order of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. It was titled "The Douglas System of Social Credit: Evidence taken by the Agricultural Committee of the Alberta Legislature, Session 1934". This Committee investigation was conducted at the request of the United Farmers of Alberta Provincial Government, prior to the election in 1935 of Social Credit which would be led by Premier William Aberhart. Both Douglas and Aberhart, plus three other witness were invited to give information and submit to questioning by the Committee. I send by separate e-mail message the first part of the document so that you can see exactly what is was. The second part will follow in a separate transmission. Sincerely, Wally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.27.19 (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC) CHECK David Kendall (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued Revisions

Hi Jim and Wally. I think we've got the citations in order now. Please double-check them to ensure their accuracy. From this point, we need to address some other issues regarding the presentation of the text. Specifically, these issues are:

1) Original research

2) Neutral point-of-view

3) Essay writing

4) Style

The first three above characteristics need to be removed from the text you've submitted for it to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. The fourth is suggested guidelines for how headings and lead sentences and paragraphs should appear in a Wikipedia article. In my latest e-mail, I said that I would begin marking sections that need revision in these regards. However, for you to become independent editors of the Social Credit article on Wikipedia, it seems more appropriate (and essential) for you to read the Wikipedia guidelines (see above) and then either make the needed revisions for yourselves or discuss them on this "Talk" page (or both). I've already identified most of the problems in the text you submitted. But it's pointless for me to dictate these problems to you, if you don't understand why they are problems. So I'll provide you some time to do the necessary reading and post your suggested revisions. If I don't see any posted suggestions by tomorrow evening, I'll begin marking the text myself. Thanks for your help. David Kendall (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The following from the "Economic Theory" section needs proper citation:

"The first article to appear in the New Age, edited by A.R. Orage, titled “A Mechanical View of Economics” appeared in January, 1919. In this article, we get a glimpse of Douglas’s concerns in regards to the methods by which economic activity is measured when he says,"

David Kendall (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is an incendiary quotation that requires specific citation:

"He who calls for Full-Employment calls for War!"

This quotation appears in the introductory matter and in the "Economic Theory" section. It seems generally attributed to John Hargraves in the latter, but the citation for this needs to be far more specific.

David Kendall (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's Jim, and I'm finally able to edit the sandbox! I see you and Wally have been working on it. Wally, wasn't it Douglas who said that Social Credit is practical Christianity? If so, we should change the text from "It has been called", to "Douglas called". 7:35, March 16 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job, Jim! Welcome. I know it's been a long haul for you. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm glad you got it worked out. Please see my questions (above), regarding citation. Also see the introductory matter (the first couple of paragraphs). We need to polish this as much as possible before the final post.

Further, I'll ask again here: What do you both think about adding Richard C. Cook's description(s) of "credit as a public utility" to the article? I think Cook's views would lend a sense of contemporary validation to ideas that some readers might consider outdated. Moreover, this article is written primarily from the perspective of just one individual -- C.H. Douglas. Adding the perspectives of others, especially contemporary authors (like Cook), would broaden the point-of-view of the article in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines regarding "neutrality" (versus bias). If you don't like this idea, please be bold, and say so. But please also explain why.

Finally, if you've both started Wikipedia accounts, please begin signing your edits on the "Talk" page with four tildas, like this David Kendall (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC). Thank you.

Hi David, I think it's essential to keep the article in one perspective, since it was C.H. Douglas who invented Social Credit. In fact, I and Wally have taken great pains to ensure that the article itself is true to Douglas's ideas. I mean that as no disrespect to Richard Cook, and I certainly value all that he is doing. I think Richard Cook's work would better suit an article on "economic democracy" instead of Social Credit.

Wally, it says in the article that "Social Credit has been referred to as practical Christianity". I believe Douglas referred to Social Credit as practical Christianity, and would like to change that sentence to read "Douglas referred to Social Credit as practical Christianity", assuming that my thoughts are correct. Do you remember if Douglas said it, or was it Dobb's?

David, I'm fairly happy with the article, and would like to post it soon if you agree. 19:05, 19 March 2008

Hi Jim. If you want to post the article as is, then please do so. As a bona fide Wikipedia editor, you are now at liberty to do whatever you wish with the article. I, on the other hand, would prefer to work through a number of issues before final posting, if you don't mind. For instance, Wikipedia provides some tools for presenting mathematic equations that I've never used before. I'd like to experiment with those a bit, and get your approval (and Wally's) before final posting. There are also a number of questions that I would like to address in the article (see below). So, if you don't mind, I'd like to continue the discussion for a bit -- here on the "Talk" page. Please bear with me. Thanks for your patience.

Meanwhile, I also had problems accessing Wikipedia (in general) last night. So I deleted all cookies in my browser, closed it, reopened it, and this seemed to solve the problem. I have no idea what caused it, but you might keep this strategy in mind for future reference. The Internet doesn't seem to be a very stable place, overall.

I also received the emails from both of you regarding my suggestions above -- and I concur. In fact, Wally did such a nice job of explaining the matter, I was tempted to post his comments here in the talk page. But that's for Wally to do, not me. In any case, his comments were a good explanation that should probably be included in the article. He even cited it, which makes my job a lot easier. So, with Wally's permission, I will include that information in the article. As I mentioned to Jim in the beginning of this project, these Q&A sessions are a good way to distinguish Social Credit from other proposals. This "Talk" page is a better place for those discussions than e-mail. So let's start discussing the ideas here.

This brings up another question. Wally states: "Re the definition of "credit as a public utility" it has to be clear that this does not mean a government utility, per se." He also says: "I think that [Cook] has very properly emphasized the Social Credit Consumer (National) Dividend although he seems to give less weight publically to the Compensated Price which is at the core of Social Credit." Finally, our introduction for this article states: "Social Credit is a distributive philosophy, and its policy is to disperse power to individuals".

My question regarding this is with regard to administration: Who administrates "distribution" under Social Credit policy? Specifically, who administers the National Dividend and the Compensated Price"? Is it government, or some other entity? I have other questions, and so will other readers, but let's start with these for now. David Kendall (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions of administration, article organization, math

Hi David

Sorry I did not respond sooner, but my girlfriend spilled coffee on the keyboard, and I had to replace it. A government body free from political interference administers the National Dividend and compensated price. A body much like our central banks today, except that they would be charged with creating a national balance sheet, and collecting consumption and production statistics to scientifically determine the size of the price rebate and dividend, as opposed to the current practice of the "whim" of the chairman of the Central Bank based upon erroneous econometric models that are based on erroneous assumptions - such as the quantity theory of money.

I hope this answers your question, and I see where it's headed. The difference, in my opinion, between a "credit as a public utility" and what we're talking about is that the term "public utility" generally means that the utility is controlled in the states best interest, because it is believed that the "state" comprises the wishes of the "public" via ballot box democracy. Not only are Social Crediters opposed to ballot box democracy, but we believe that individuals are best suited to determine what's in their best interest. This may seem like a bit of semantics, but I think there is a difference. A National Credit Authority would have no ability to determine the size of the rebate or dividend based upon "political decisions". It would be based upon accurate compilation of statistics. Whereas; it is my view that viewing credit as a public utility entails that the state has the right to use the credit in the "public's interest". I hope I have clarified the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jim (alias Chdouglas). Please try typing four tildas at the end of your posts on the "Talk" page. Sorry if I seem like a nag, but this is another Wikipedia guideline that generally makes it easier to see who said what.

The stuff you've said above is very good, and should also be included in the article. I intend to include it, as it makes a ton of common sense. But even "common sense" needs to be cited on Wikipedia, so please be prepared to provide some citation(s) to support your claims.

Meanwhile, I've been playing around with Wikipedia tools for presenting mathematical equations (please see the "Economic theory" section). The equation I fooled around with was intended to echo the verbal description in that precedes it. It doesn't necessarily need to stay, and it might need some revision if it does stay. For example, how do we calculate the "mean rate of consumption" and the "mean rate of production"? If we want to retain this equation, these factors should be detailed further.

The reason I've messed around with the "math" stuff is that (as you suggest above) Social Credit tends to be based on many such equations -- rather than "political interferrence". So let's begin to identify the key equations and include them in the article. Wally has already provided me with tons of literature that I will begin scanning for the key equations. But to save time, I assume you two already know which ones should be included. Please direct me. Thanks.

I also provided an internal link for the "Social Credit movement" (see introduction) -- which links to the Wikipedia article on the "Canadian Social Credit movement". Is this correct? Is this what the link should refer to?

I've also moved the "Economic theory" section to immediately follow the introduction. If you oppose this idea, please boldly explain why. Meanwhile, this move seems essential in defining "WHAT" Social Credit is -- with "History" and "Philosophy" being subordinate to that definition. As indicated in the style article that I previously suggested you both read, the first few paragraphs of any Wikipedia article should clearly DEFINE the subject matter. We can revise subsequent sections for more logical flow if necessary. While I realize "economics" is not the only emphasis of Social Credit, "economics" does seem to be the "nuts & bolts" of the system. So there is my argument. Dispute it if you wish.

For similar reasons (see Jim's comments above), I've moved the "Political theory" section to immediately follow the "Economic theory" section and precede the "Political history" section. As usual, any comments are welcome.

Finally, please see my request for citations (above). Wally sent me some stuff on John Hargraves the other day, and I will scan that for a citation. Meanwhile there are still some blanks to fill in for "A Mechanical View of Economics". Thank you.

David Kendall (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I have no problem with the way you've re-arranged it. The economics of Social Credit is very important. I believe that the philosophical aspect is the most important, but I don't think that should be the first section someone reads on Social Credit because it is known for its economic aspect, and that is what many tend to focus upon.

Did Wally send you a scanned version of The Monopoly of Credit? In the appendix of that book is an address to the World Engineering Congress in Tokyo, where he gives an exact mathematical formula for determining the price rebate:

{sum(T1-T2) dC/dt dt}/ {sum (T1-T2) dP/dt}

where: sum(T1-T2) is the integral from Time 1 to Time 2

dC/dt and dP/dt is the rate of change of Consumption and Production respectively over time

If you can find the integral sign, or point me to the mathematical formula section, I could include this formula.

I will try to find necessary information for "A Mechanical View of Economics", hopefully Wally can assist with that.Chdouglas (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, here is the math template, specifically regarding integrals. David Kendall (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I changed the mathematical formula and expanded upon the price rebate discussion. Let me know what you think Chdouglas (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The formula looks awesome, Jim! I'll need to read the details later. I'm doing 12-hr work days again this week. So I'll get back on it this weekend. Thank you! David Kendall (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internal links and more math questions

Hi Dave, like what you've done with the links. The capital section you have linked to capital cities, but it should be linked to economic capital. I don't want to change it because I might screw it up. This is the url the word should be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics) The article itself is starting to take a really nice form. I've been tweaking the wording a bit, and I believe that Wally should have the citation information for you shortly in regards to "A Mechanical View of Economics". Chdouglas (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OOPS!! Sorry. That was stupid of me. But tell ya what, Jim... for practice, how about you go ahead and fix the internal link for "capital". If you "screw it up", this "sandbox" is the place to do it -- before it gets posted on the final page. Just type [[Capital (economics)|capital]] in the editing box to get capital on the saved page. The name of the page (exactly as it appears at the top of the Wikipedia article) goes on the left side of the verticle line |, and the text you want displayed goes on the right side. For "internal" (Wikipedia) links, you put double square brackets on both ends. Go ahead and give it a try. If you screw it up, I'll fix it. HA! If you don't screw it up, then maybe you can help me finish the internal links for the rest of the page.

Meanwhile, I'm putting questionable words in all-caps to bring them to your attention and Wally's. The reason I say "questionable" is that some of the words in this article might have implications (according to Wikipedia) other than what you've intended. If these words do indeed mean exactly what you expected, then we'll leave them. If not, perhaps substitute terms should be used.

One of these in particular is the word aristocracy, which Wikipedia suggests is a "hereditary form of government, etc., etc...". Another is the word orthodox, which Wikipedia redirects to Eastern Christianity. Actually, in the process of writing this message, I've discovered Orthodoxy, which seems a more appropriate general purpose link. So I'll fix that.

Anyway, that's all for now. David Kendall (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries Dave. I appreciate all your help. I'll make the changes, and maybe I'll get used to editing it. I want to change the word "orthodox" to classical, which I see you have already linked to the "classical economists" article in Wikipedia.

As for the "aristocracy" link, I like it because the word "aristocracy" in Social Credit is taken from the greek use of the word which is supplied by the article in Wikipedia: "The term "aristocracy" is derived from the Greek aristokratia, meaning the rule of the best" Social Credit envisions an "aristocracy of producers", meaning that production is "ruled by the best" (i.e. the best rulers are given the job to rule the company). Chdouglas (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, only the FIRST instance of any term gets an internal link. Sorry -- this is yet another Wikipedia guideline. David Kendall (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim -- regarding the price rebate formula: sum(T1-T2) dC/dt dt}/ {sum (T1-T2) dP/dt} where: sum(T1-T2) is the integral from Time 1 to Time 2 dC/dt and dP/dt is the rate of change of Consumption and Production respectively over time

If I understand correctly, "T" is a timestamp -- timeStart, timeEnd. "C" is consumption. "P" is production. Sorry if this is a stupid question: What do "d" and "t" represent? David Kendall (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, there's no such thing as a "stupid question". dC/dt and dP/dt are the change in Consumption and Production respectively over time, also known as the derivative of consumption and production functions over time. Basically that calculus formula simply means that you add up all the consumption from time T1 to T2 and divide it by all the production from T1 to T2 and you get the ratio. The integral sign is an elongated S which is a symbol for sum. If you add up all the changes in production over the time period from T1 until T2 you get all of production from T1 until T2. It's a mathematical formal way of defining consumption/production from time T1 to T2. Chdouglas (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this helps a little, but I'm still confused -- as other readers might be. What are the lower-case "d" and "t"? Are these calculus symbols? If so, I'm not at all familiar with calculus. Maybe a brief explanation is in order. Maybe not. Try explaining it to me here, and we'll see.

Meanwhile, I am somewhat familiar with statistics and finance formulas regarding "time" and money (just barely enough to be annoying). In stats, the "sum" symbol $\sum$ is typically used. Douglas's formula uses the "integral" symbol $\int$ instead. Why? This doesn't necessarily need to be discussed in the article. But if the explanation is simple (brief) enough, maybe it should be discussed -- for the benefit of newbies like me.

I see you've gone hog-wild with the internal links. HA! Good job. And thanks. I will make another pass to eliminate any duplications and pick up some that you might have missed. David Kendall (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, these are excellent questions. The lower case dt at the end of the integral is what you are integrating with respect to, in this case change in time (dt). Also, the summation symbol you used and the integral are the exact same, except the summation symbol is used for discrete functions, and integrals are used for continuous functions. Both symbols essentially mean the exact same thing. In mathematical statistics, integrals are used all the time. Check out probability density functions, and note the use of integrals and summation signs. Chdouglas (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Excellent explanations. Thanks, Jim! Probably too involved for the article though. So let's skip that idea. Also, I wanted to see how the $100 * 3/4 = $75 would look with the math formatting. But it's actually kind of dorky. So I'll probably put it back the way it was. Anyway... off to work now. David Kendall (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More citations needed

The last paragraph in the "Economic theory" section needs supporting citation(s). We can leave it as is, if you like. But without supporting citations, it will most likely be slammed as original research. Take the risk if you want -- or invest the time to provide citations. Your choice.

Also, I've made a number of phrasing revisions throughout this section. Please carefully peruse my work to ensure I haven't changed your original intent in any way. Thank you. David Kendall (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David:

I see there is a "citation needed" in the political theory section.

The following link is the source for the statement:

http://www.alor.org/Library/NatureofDemocracy.htm#1a

Chdouglas (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BEYOND SOCIAL CREDIT?

It is good to see an attempt to clarify the workings of the Social Credit philosophy/economics. However, Transfinancial Economics offers a far more powerful solution to the problems of the world. It notably involves electronic controls over inflation levels and if the programmes used are advanced enough (still in research and development)they can allow the authorized transmission of new non-repayable money to act as the basis on which greater, and greater social, economic, and political reform can occur. This is revolutionary.

Anyway, here is a link to TFE (the present Kheper essay should be replaced fairly soon).

http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/2008-April/005396.html

Regards,

Robert Searle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.22.16.194 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The changes look great David. Is there anything else you need from me? Or is this just about ready to go up? Chdouglas (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert, is it really necessary to try to sell binary economics on a discussion page devoted to creating an article on Social Credit? There is already a Wikipedia article on binary economics, so why don't you edit that article. Personally, I don't think Kelso holds a candle to Douglas, and I certainly do not think that direct ownership of capital does anything to bridge the gap between income an prices.

This is a discussion page on an article about Social Credit, so if you have something to state about the article, then you are certainly free to do so, but I do not believe this is the place to try to promote Kelso's ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not promoting Binary Economics as this is too limited. Instead I am attracting people to TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS which is similiar to Social Credit...hence, the connection, and relevance. I greatly admire the work of Douglas as he did a wonderful job. Yet, as far as I am concerned he did not go far enough but he deserves his due as one of the greatest monetary reformers of the 20th Century, and I hope your project continues successfully as Social Credit needs increased clarification before it can be taken more seriously..............

Regards,

Robert Searle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

My computer monitor burnt out. So I had to get a new one. I am sorry for my delayed response. There are other revisions I'd like to make before releasing this article. Please bear with me, and have a little faith, as we bring the article to its best initial public presentation.

I don't know who Mr. Searle is. But the Internet is not a terribly "private" place. As such, his comments are as welcome as anyone else's -- especially on Wikipedia. His unsolicited intrusion in this user "sandbox" is merely additional evidence that your knowledge and participation is essential for the continued integrity of the article. Do "I" need anything more from you, Jim? No. But this article most certainly does. If you don't have anything more to give it, then you might as well walk away now.

Meanwhile, there are a number of other revisions I'd like to make before it goes "public". The citation questions I've asked still need to be answered, and there are a number of organizational changes I'd like to make. I was hoping to get all these issues resolved this weekend, but my monitor difficulties prevented that. I'll do the best I can tomorrow. Meanwhile, let's shoot for next weekend to "Git-R-Done".

Thanks for all your help and patience, Jim. Keep the faith. David Kendall (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help David, without it this article would have never been completed. I have been tweaking the article here and there as I find words or phrases that could be better, but I think overall I'm happy with the content of the article. I've bugged Wally a couple of times about the New Age quote, but I have not heard back from him. It does not matter because the article was reprinted in Douglas's book entitled Control and Distribution of Production, so we can always reference the book. I'll email him again and see if he's made any progress in this regard. Sorry to hear about your monitor, but I know how you feel as my girlfriend spilled her coffee on the keyboard a couple of weeks ago and I lost access to the computer until I replaced it. I also see that Americans use the expression "git-r-done". Let me know on this page if you need anything specific from me. Thanks David. Chdouglas (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Completion

Jim and Wally:

This weekend I hope we can complete the new Social Credit article. In this regard, I will need plenty of help from you. Rather than asking for citations here in the "Talk" page, I will simply place ^{[citation needed]} tags in the article itself. Prior to final posting, your possible responses include:

1) replace the tags with the necessary citations,

2) remove the tags and post the final text without citation,

3) leave the tags and post the final text without citation.

While I respect your final decision to handle this however you wish, my job is to bring potential problems to your attention. At this point, I would also like for Jim to try his hand at providing citations on his own. While there are plenty of examples in this article for you to emulate, please ask if you need any technical help from me.

As mentioned previously, I will also make a number of phrasing and organizational changes this weekend. While I don't want to change any of your original intent, you do need to follow along behind me to ensure that I haven't. As you might have noticed, I tend to move along quite slowly. So this shouldn't be much of a challenge for you.

Many thanks for all your help, gentlemen. Let's get this thing "finished" (started) , shall we? David Kendall (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

The "Philosophy" section is conspicuously lacking citation. The "Original Research" tag I've placed indicates that claims in this section appear to be the opinions (conclusions) drawn by the author(s) of the Wikipedia article -- almost completely unsupported by any sort of reliable reference. While I think we've done a great job of citing other sections of this article, the "Philosophy" section needs a lot of attention. As a result, I doubt this article will be ready for publication this weekend. But I'm also not in any hurry. I prefer to get it correct and defensible prior to releasing it publicly.

The quickest easiest fix is to provide at least one citation per paragraph -- with page numbers. In this case, I don't think it's necessary to perfectly cite each individual claim. But we do need to at least provide some general citation (from Douglas or whoever) at the end of each paragraph.

Meanwhile, I will continue moving through the article with revisions and internal links and such. Once I arrive at the bottom of the article, I will start at the top again, and begin reorganizing sections and sub-sections. I will leave it to you to provide the citations requested above. Thank you. David Kendall (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Critics of the A+B theorem" section has the same problems as the "Philosophy" section, so I have placed two tags in that section: 1) Original Research and 2) Essay-Like writing. While there is nothing inherently wrong with either of the above, NEITHER belongs in an encyclopedia article, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Once again, the simplest solution is to simply provide some sort of citation to support your claims. I realize much of this was probably written by either Jim or Wally or both, based on your personal interpretations of Douglas's work. While I have great respect for your knowledge in the matter, the claims still need to be cited properly. David Kendall (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David:

I see you added a section in the article. While I agree with it in it entirely, these ideas are covered again in the article itself. I believe this comes from Martin Hattersley's website. I would like to retain part of it - the part on policy (i.e. national dividend, compensated prices etc... because this is straight to the point, but I think the part on the A+B theorem is covered in the body of the article, and I don't want to duplicate material. I would also like to rename two sections "Economics" and "Politics" which would have policy recommendation theory etc.. under economics and political theory and practice under politics.

What do you think? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Social Credit/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Initial Creation

[edit] Continued Revisions

[edit] Questions of administration, article organization, math

[edit] Internal links and more math questions

[edit] More citations needed

[edit] BEYOND SOCIAL CREDIT?

[edit] Completion

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search