This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Competition law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Competition law was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
|
Which sources have been used for it? -- Vision Thing -- 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody show me references for these sections? Linking to main article just is not enough, one needs to supply refs localy.-- Kozuch ( talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest simplifying the main section names - removing "Competition law" from them.-- Kozuch ( talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Kozuch keeps adding tags on two sections saying there aren't references. I referred him to WP:CITE, and pointed out there are loads of references (i.e. the links to the specific statutes and articles of the EC Treaty), that the whole thing is in summary style anyway, but I'm not sure he's going to listen. Would anyone like to comment on what they feel is lacking? And then would they like to do it themselves? As it stands I think that just moaning is singularly unproductive. Wik idea 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
From my reading of few sections of the article there seems to be some POV problems. For one article seems to be written from perspective that more regulation is better. For example, in section Post war development it is stated that "Commonwealth countries were slow in enacting statutory competition law provisions." Why "slow", why not "reluctant" or something else? Also, there seems to be a lack of criticism for concept of "competition law" in general and it seems to lack any criticism of its application in practice. I'm pretty sure there were many examples where competition laws were used to stifle completion instead of supporting it, and examples of market dominant firms that simply lost its place in the market without any government intervention. In short, my impression is that this article was written from viewpoint of eager anti-trust lawmakers while viewpoint of business is neglected. -- Vision Thing -- 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There has been no consensus to delete the image of the cartoon from the top of the page. It ought to remain there until otherwise agreed. Bearian ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added that clause before the citation to Bork's text. I think that is a decent compromise and accurately reflects the current status, without granting any side of the debate undue weight. Bearian ( talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No article on Wikipedia is ever finished, so bristling at changes to a "far from finished" article is especially strange.
This comment is not helpful. I don't think anyone is accusing you of changing the meaning on purpose, but the sentence you proposed does have a different meaning. One would believe that Bork is accusing antitrust laws of necessarily helping inefficient competitors. No, he's not; in the United States, helping small competitors was one of the only coherent themes of pre-1970s antitrust law. Instead he's saying that consumer welfare is harmed when inefficient competitors are protected, ect. Anyhow, it's better to discuss these issues than make threats. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The problems I listed in Talk:Competition law/Old still, for the most part, have not been addressed, yet the tags were removed. THF ( talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of these were suggestions made in June 2007; only a few of them have been resolved. I've added new ones. This is, believe it or not, not a complete list.
For these 40 or so reasons, I have added the {rewrite}, {expert}, {disputed}, {npov}, {globalize}, {weasel} and {originalresearch} tags. THF ( talk) 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with quite a few points on THF's list, but point 1 is incorrect. The SIEC test and the practice of the European Commission only have the protection of the consumer in mind, and not the protection of competitors. SmilingBoy ( talk) 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
THF works for the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing lobby group, and the reason he brings this here now is that he is engaging in an attempt to delete the tort reform article. While some of that list of 40 may be relevant, editors are advised that this is probably more about pursuing a grudge than anything else. He is not willing to engage in discussion, or any constructive, incremental change, but would simply prefer to see whole articles deleted. Also, don't be fooled into tthinking he is an expert on this, despite his bombastic, self righteous tone. Wik idea 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph makes no sense whatso:
Robert Bork has argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.[5]
Allegedly Bork claims that “competition laws … [sometimes] … reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors”. That means that competition laws sometimes have exactly the opposite effect of what they’re intended to do. I find that a paradoxical statement that requires explanation. Or else the writer made a stupid mistake and didn't bother to proofread what he wrote, which is a more likely explanation.
I don't think even such a dimwit as Robert Bork would state something so outlandish without at least giving an example of what he meant. I had the misfortune to read some of his ramblings on economics, and I got the clear impression that he does not have the foggiest notion of what he's writing about. He uses economic theory as a blunt instrument. His thinking on economic matters is crude, ponderous and mechanical.
Bork is the Sayyid Qutb of conservatism (and just about as pig-headed as that worthy).
I won't even go into the dirt dished on him by the guy who started Media Matters, a right-wing libelist, Matt Something, the darling of the right, who switched sides when he was finally nauseated by the festering corruption of conservative politics. What he has to say about Bork’s political and judicial shenanigans shows that Bork is the closest thing to Josef Stalin that ever got within hailing distance of a Supreme Court job. In any case he's a heavy-duty dirtbag, and I reject his prattle on purely ethical grounds.
By the way, there are right-wing economists whom I respect, like Hayek and Demsetz§ Mumbo-jumbophobe ( talk) 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Mumbo-Jumbophobe.
I'm very much a novice in this field, however this article cites the US Sherman Act of 1890 as the origin of modern competition law.
The Canadian "Act for the Suppression of Combinations Formed in Restraint of Trade" (see http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/canusa12&div=9&id=&page=) was in 1889... this should at least be mentioned in the article.
216.121.218.12 ( talk) 03:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
In the United Stated antitrust sentence, one of the paragraphs states "The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended", without explaining why, or what the immediate effects were. Don't remember offhand myself... -- Agamemnus ( talk) 07:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It needs to get the new TFEU articles numbers. Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer to the final sentence of the "Principles" section:
Could someone who is familiar with the work at hand (Smith) tell us if this means India the country or some sort of 'india' commodity (rubber, ink, etc.)? Iain ( talk) 21:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is suffering from ham-fisted editing that makes it appear to be written by someone who's first language is not english. Examples: under heading Theory, subheading Neo-classical Synthesis, "...or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to..." Will be reduce their output to? That is gibberish. And under heading Practice, subheading Dominance and monopoly, "This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[70] leading to an eventual fine of million for including its Windows Media Player..." an eventual fine of 'million', whatever that means... and I suspect there are more, I didn't read the whole page. I find it hard to believe this page was ever a 'former good article nominee', but one thing is for sure, unless editors of this page start proof-reading their edits, it will never again be nominated as a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.5.24 ( talk) 07:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Competition law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Competition law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Competition law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Competition law was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
|
Which sources have been used for it? -- Vision Thing -- 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody show me references for these sections? Linking to main article just is not enough, one needs to supply refs localy.-- Kozuch ( talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest simplifying the main section names - removing "Competition law" from them.-- Kozuch ( talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Kozuch keeps adding tags on two sections saying there aren't references. I referred him to WP:CITE, and pointed out there are loads of references (i.e. the links to the specific statutes and articles of the EC Treaty), that the whole thing is in summary style anyway, but I'm not sure he's going to listen. Would anyone like to comment on what they feel is lacking? And then would they like to do it themselves? As it stands I think that just moaning is singularly unproductive. Wik idea 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
From my reading of few sections of the article there seems to be some POV problems. For one article seems to be written from perspective that more regulation is better. For example, in section Post war development it is stated that "Commonwealth countries were slow in enacting statutory competition law provisions." Why "slow", why not "reluctant" or something else? Also, there seems to be a lack of criticism for concept of "competition law" in general and it seems to lack any criticism of its application in practice. I'm pretty sure there were many examples where competition laws were used to stifle completion instead of supporting it, and examples of market dominant firms that simply lost its place in the market without any government intervention. In short, my impression is that this article was written from viewpoint of eager anti-trust lawmakers while viewpoint of business is neglected. -- Vision Thing -- 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There has been no consensus to delete the image of the cartoon from the top of the page. It ought to remain there until otherwise agreed. Bearian ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added that clause before the citation to Bork's text. I think that is a decent compromise and accurately reflects the current status, without granting any side of the debate undue weight. Bearian ( talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No article on Wikipedia is ever finished, so bristling at changes to a "far from finished" article is especially strange.
This comment is not helpful. I don't think anyone is accusing you of changing the meaning on purpose, but the sentence you proposed does have a different meaning. One would believe that Bork is accusing antitrust laws of necessarily helping inefficient competitors. No, he's not; in the United States, helping small competitors was one of the only coherent themes of pre-1970s antitrust law. Instead he's saying that consumer welfare is harmed when inefficient competitors are protected, ect. Anyhow, it's better to discuss these issues than make threats. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The problems I listed in Talk:Competition law/Old still, for the most part, have not been addressed, yet the tags were removed. THF ( talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of these were suggestions made in June 2007; only a few of them have been resolved. I've added new ones. This is, believe it or not, not a complete list.
For these 40 or so reasons, I have added the {rewrite}, {expert}, {disputed}, {npov}, {globalize}, {weasel} and {originalresearch} tags. THF ( talk) 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with quite a few points on THF's list, but point 1 is incorrect. The SIEC test and the practice of the European Commission only have the protection of the consumer in mind, and not the protection of competitors. SmilingBoy ( talk) 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
THF works for the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing lobby group, and the reason he brings this here now is that he is engaging in an attempt to delete the tort reform article. While some of that list of 40 may be relevant, editors are advised that this is probably more about pursuing a grudge than anything else. He is not willing to engage in discussion, or any constructive, incremental change, but would simply prefer to see whole articles deleted. Also, don't be fooled into tthinking he is an expert on this, despite his bombastic, self righteous tone. Wik idea 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph makes no sense whatso:
Robert Bork has argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.[5]
Allegedly Bork claims that “competition laws … [sometimes] … reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors”. That means that competition laws sometimes have exactly the opposite effect of what they’re intended to do. I find that a paradoxical statement that requires explanation. Or else the writer made a stupid mistake and didn't bother to proofread what he wrote, which is a more likely explanation.
I don't think even such a dimwit as Robert Bork would state something so outlandish without at least giving an example of what he meant. I had the misfortune to read some of his ramblings on economics, and I got the clear impression that he does not have the foggiest notion of what he's writing about. He uses economic theory as a blunt instrument. His thinking on economic matters is crude, ponderous and mechanical.
Bork is the Sayyid Qutb of conservatism (and just about as pig-headed as that worthy).
I won't even go into the dirt dished on him by the guy who started Media Matters, a right-wing libelist, Matt Something, the darling of the right, who switched sides when he was finally nauseated by the festering corruption of conservative politics. What he has to say about Bork’s political and judicial shenanigans shows that Bork is the closest thing to Josef Stalin that ever got within hailing distance of a Supreme Court job. In any case he's a heavy-duty dirtbag, and I reject his prattle on purely ethical grounds.
By the way, there are right-wing economists whom I respect, like Hayek and Demsetz§ Mumbo-jumbophobe ( talk) 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Mumbo-Jumbophobe.
I'm very much a novice in this field, however this article cites the US Sherman Act of 1890 as the origin of modern competition law.
The Canadian "Act for the Suppression of Combinations Formed in Restraint of Trade" (see http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/canusa12&div=9&id=&page=) was in 1889... this should at least be mentioned in the article.
216.121.218.12 ( talk) 03:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
In the United Stated antitrust sentence, one of the paragraphs states "The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended", without explaining why, or what the immediate effects were. Don't remember offhand myself... -- Agamemnus ( talk) 07:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It needs to get the new TFEU articles numbers. Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer to the final sentence of the "Principles" section:
Could someone who is familiar with the work at hand (Smith) tell us if this means India the country or some sort of 'india' commodity (rubber, ink, etc.)? Iain ( talk) 21:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is suffering from ham-fisted editing that makes it appear to be written by someone who's first language is not english. Examples: under heading Theory, subheading Neo-classical Synthesis, "...or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to..." Will be reduce their output to? That is gibberish. And under heading Practice, subheading Dominance and monopoly, "This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[70] leading to an eventual fine of million for including its Windows Media Player..." an eventual fine of 'million', whatever that means... and I suspect there are more, I didn't read the whole page. I find it hard to believe this page was ever a 'former good article nominee', but one thing is for sure, unless editors of this page start proof-reading their edits, it will never again be nominated as a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.5.24 ( talk) 07:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Competition law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Competition law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)