This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our
recommended sources and our
style guide
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is
not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
Support Contra Dekimasu, while latitude does feature heavily (especially in the lead) even the current version of the article is not so latitude-centric that Geography and wealth would be an inappropriate title. If the edits that need to be done get done (I voted delete in the original AfD & voted to restore in the DR in the expectation that the article will get fixed) then it just cannot stay at Latitude and wealth. Both are reasons to move, I think leaving it as-is is a bad idea, better to have deleted it.
Pete.Hurd05:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Otherwise too much of the article, and editors' time, would end up trying to support that particular angle, when it could become a comprehensive survey. Altho I don't have much time at the moment, a rewording of the first paragraph could easily be done by anyone. Novickas 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support this article has been cleaned up significantly, but I think the title still has POV problems. "Geography and wealth" seems like a good answer, I'm not sure about "Climate and wealth" since I think climate is only one of the factors being discussed here.
Mak(talk)20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Survey - in opposition to the move
Discussion
Add any additional comments:
I read the deletion debates, but this needs a major overhaul if it's to be moved.
Geography and wealth would probably be a better topic, but as it stands, the article is about what the title says: latitude. For that reason I don't feel comfortable supporting the move.
Dekimasuよ!03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
If you look at the
Gallup-Sachs paper (page 50), you get a list of considered independent variables: Some are latitude-related (ecozones, malaria), others aren't (altitude, distance to waterways). The article now might be latitude-heavy, but the research considers other factors, and with a rewrite of the lead this article can be pointed in the right direction. Choosing one causal factor over the others is simply problematic for policy reasons. ~
trialsanderrors17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Possible additional source
I note here a new additional source that is related. It is a primary source academic article, the best version
http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/wealth1000bc.pdf. {{
cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (
help) I can link to may be pre-publication - at the very least I can't tell where it was published. On the other hand, it has a June 2007 publication date. An earlier version was published as a
National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in
2006. It is being picked up by the discussion community, e.g.
Brookings Institute. The paper is primarily about the effect of historical technology upon modern economic development, but does test geography in multiple ways as an alternative explanation (generally finding that historical technology is significant even when controlling for continent or latitude). The fourth paragraph of section 5 is a discussion of this aspect of the analysis, including a survey of significant sources on the issue.
GRBerry18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our
recommended sources and our
style guide
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is
not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
Support Contra Dekimasu, while latitude does feature heavily (especially in the lead) even the current version of the article is not so latitude-centric that Geography and wealth would be an inappropriate title. If the edits that need to be done get done (I voted delete in the original AfD & voted to restore in the DR in the expectation that the article will get fixed) then it just cannot stay at Latitude and wealth. Both are reasons to move, I think leaving it as-is is a bad idea, better to have deleted it.
Pete.Hurd05:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Otherwise too much of the article, and editors' time, would end up trying to support that particular angle, when it could become a comprehensive survey. Altho I don't have much time at the moment, a rewording of the first paragraph could easily be done by anyone. Novickas 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support this article has been cleaned up significantly, but I think the title still has POV problems. "Geography and wealth" seems like a good answer, I'm not sure about "Climate and wealth" since I think climate is only one of the factors being discussed here.
Mak(talk)20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Survey - in opposition to the move
Discussion
Add any additional comments:
I read the deletion debates, but this needs a major overhaul if it's to be moved.
Geography and wealth would probably be a better topic, but as it stands, the article is about what the title says: latitude. For that reason I don't feel comfortable supporting the move.
Dekimasuよ!03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
If you look at the
Gallup-Sachs paper (page 50), you get a list of considered independent variables: Some are latitude-related (ecozones, malaria), others aren't (altitude, distance to waterways). The article now might be latitude-heavy, but the research considers other factors, and with a rewrite of the lead this article can be pointed in the right direction. Choosing one causal factor over the others is simply problematic for policy reasons. ~
trialsanderrors17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Possible additional source
I note here a new additional source that is related. It is a primary source academic article, the best version
http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/wealth1000bc.pdf. {{
cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (
help) I can link to may be pre-publication - at the very least I can't tell where it was published. On the other hand, it has a June 2007 publication date. An earlier version was published as a
National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in
2006. It is being picked up by the discussion community, e.g.
Brookings Institute. The paper is primarily about the effect of historical technology upon modern economic development, but does test geography in multiple ways as an alternative explanation (generally finding that historical technology is significant even when controlling for continent or latitude). The fourth paragraph of section 5 is a discussion of this aspect of the analysis, including a survey of significant sources on the issue.
GRBerry18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply