User talk:Barkrich

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Barkrich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Zelder Paradox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! E. Fokker (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Zelder Paradox[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Zelder Paradox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. E. Fokker (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I just couldn't understand what the Zelder paradox was supposed to be. Despite the nomination for "promotion", I took the view that it probably wasn't promoting anything (or if it was, it was hard to see what it was promoting). But the opening sentence reads: "In economics, the Zelder Paradox is the observation of Martin Zelder that the presence of marital public goods increases the likelihood of divorce that reduces the combined welfare of both spouses." That sentence makes no sense. What are "marital public goods"? What does "the combined welfare of both spouses" mean? That's either tautological or self-contradictory. If Martin Zelder were a well-known economist, the references to his own work might be acceptable, but they are not third-party references, which further undermines the article's credibility. Deb (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hey, I read your latest reply at User talk:Deb and had a look at your draft. I think it looks allright, but I have raised a minor issue on the talkpage (User talk:Barkrich/Zelder Paradox). Yoenit (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it can be restored, but it would be better to work it up to a reasonable level before you create the new article. Original text is below.

In economics, the Zelder Paradox is the observation of Martin Zelder that the presence of marital public goods increases the likelihood of divorce that reduces the combined welfare of both spouses.^[1] Furthermore, the more effort a couple puts into those activities usually considered most central to marriage, such as love and the raising of children, the more likely it is that a sub-optimal divorce will occur. The paradox is both that marriages sometimes end in divorce even when it reduces the combined welfare of both spouses, and that the likelihood of this outcome is higher when a marriage is based on love and children rather than more prosaic matters such as money and household tasks.

Marital public goods are produced within marriage, but neither spouse can exclude the other from enjoying them. If a spouse can exclude a husband or wife from enjoying a marital good, then a spouse who prefers to stay married can use it to bargain in an attempt to prevent divorce. The Coase Theorem suggests that if the joint benefits of marriage outweigh the joint costs, bargaining (if possible) will save marriages in all cases where continued marriage would be jointly welfare-maximizing. If the benefits of marriage are non-public, such as time spent on household chores, or income transfers, then spouses can withhold them or offer to increase them in order to save a marriage. Public goods, however, cannot be withheld, and so cannot be used for bargaining.

The marital goods most commonly considered to be public are children.^[2] If both spouses care about the welfare of their children, then a happy child will benefit both parents, and neither spouse can prevent the other from enjoying this benefit. (Of course, some of the benefits associated with children are private, e.g., time spent with a child by one spouse while the other spouse is excluded.) If spouses’ love for each other is largely public (within the marriage), then it cannot be used to bargain to save a marriage.^[3]

Evidence supporting the Zelder paradox can be found in higher divorce rates for couples with children in states with no-fault divorce laws. All 50 U.S. states now have no-fault divorce, but during the 1970s divorce laws differed significantly by state. (In a fault divorce regime, the presence of marital public goods has no effect on the likelihood of divorce, because spousal bargaining is occurring within divorce, not marriage.) In a no-fault regime, if only one spouse wishes to preserve a marriage, that spouse needs private gains (which can be transferred to the other) to succeed, and if a large fraction of marital assets are public goods, such bargaining will be impossible. Zelder (1993) found evidence that couples whose gains to marriage came disproportionately from children were more likely to divorce once the state they lived in switched to no-fault.

The new version is definitely an improvement. The criticism most likely to be levelled at it is that it appears to be promoting the work of one, not very well-known, economist. Why doesn't Martin Zelder have an article? Does he meet the notability guidelines? If he doesn't, then his work is not likely to. I don't have access to the publications from which you draw your references, but you should ensure that most of those references are specifically to the Zelder paradox, not to other more general statements in the article. Deb (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Zelder, Martin (2008) “The Intrinsic Social Cost of Public Goods: Revising (Downward) the Optimal Size of Government,” Research Symposium on Bad Public Goods, Northwestern University, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/searlecenter/papers/Zelder_Social_Cost.pdf.
^ Zelder, Martin (1993) "Inefficient Dissolutions as a Consequence of Public Goods: The Case of No-Fault Divorce," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. XXII, 503-520.
^ Zelder, Martin (2009) "The Essential Economics of Love," Teoria, vol. 29, 133-150.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zelder Paradox was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chzz ► 16:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I've reviewed the submission and replied, on User_talk:Chzz#Zelder_Paradox. Chzz ► 06:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zelder Paradox[edit]

Note: I copied this over from my talk; I answered there, but, I noticed you have not edited since. Because my talk page is very active, I wanted to move it to an archive - but, I thought it best to also put a copy here, so you can read it at your leisure. If you have follow-up questions or anything, please just start a new section on my talk page. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, I saw the note saying "Please try to address the concerns explained in the 'feedback' request" In the feedback request, you said:

Please be very careful about drawing conclusions - for example, saying The problem is that some marital goods are difficult to trade. - that isn't appropriate encyclopaedic language (saying "the problem is...") and, it appears to be original research, which is not permitted; see also WP:OR. There are also unreferenced claims, such as Evidence supporting the Zelder paradox can be found in higher divorce rates for couples with children - again, that looks like original research, unless someone else has published that claim.

My reply was:

Thanks for your comments. Instead of "the problem is...", how about "In order to be applicable, however, the Coase Theorem requires frictionless trading between parties. In marriage, some goods are difficult to trade. (footnote to Zelder 1993)" On the second comment, this claim has been published. I meant the Zelder 1993 reference to apply to the whole paragraph. I'll change it to make that clearer.Barkrich (talk)

I made these changes, which you can see on User:Barkrich/Zelder_Paradox. Do they address your concerns? I'm sorry for the fragmented discussion - I'm still learning my way around here.Barkrich (talk)

I can see a few other, similar problems; nothing too major, but things that need checking. I'll have a proper read, and explain here as soon as possible (which might be a day or more). Chzz ► 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Barkrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zelder Paradox

Divorce is destructive when one spouse wants to remain married more than the other wants a divorce - this sounds like a bold claim, with no reference; maybe this is the opinion expressed by Zelder, I don't know - but without a ref, it sounds like it is a "statement of fact". So you might need a prefix of "According to Zelder," or something.
Regarding the paragraph that begins with So called marital public goods are produced... - there are four references at the end, but I wonder if they actually specifically discuss the Zelder Paradox? If they do, that's fine; but if they do not, that would be "novel synthesis" - see WP:SYNTH
The marital good most commonly considered to be public is children^{[according to whom?]} - ie, again, this sounds like a straight factual assertion - and, I imagine other people would have a different view. Again...maybe it is the opinion of Zelder
(Of course, some of the benefits... - not Encyclopaedic tone, to say "Of course"
There are two aspects to the paradox^[who?] - is this original research? Similarly, The key factor is that... - who says this is the 'key factor'?
The info on "no-fault divorce" is unreferenced
This movement makes it more difficult...^{[according to whom?]}

I think, overall, maybe you are writing too much of your own opinions about the Zelder Paradox, and not simply stating facts that other, reliable sources have published about it. That is the key point; we do not do any original research.

Some other comments, for potential improvement to the aritcle;

It is probably best to avoid linking "love, children, sex" - they're such common terms, and the linked articles don't really help understand this one. Divorce, yes, is so relevent and critical to the topic that - even though it is also a very common term - the link is useful; ie someone reading might go there for further related details.
As it is fairly long (more than two or three paragraphs), you might consider adding a preliminary paragraph which summarizes the whole, and splitting the rest into == Sections ==. See WP:LEDE
You might get ideas by looking at some good articles on similar topic areas, such as Jevons paradox, Attachment disorder, Affluence in the United States, Price elasticity of demand, Kohlberg's stages of moral development, Maternal deprivation
It would be helpful to add the ISBN for the referenced books, if possible

(Some of the above, of course, being asthetic - an article does not have to be in any way 'perfect' to be accepted via AFC; it just needs to be neutral and verifiable).

I hope that helps. If you work on it further, then I suggest you 'resubmit' to AFC; there are instructions on how, at the top of the page. Best of luck, Chzz ► 06:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user hasn't been active since asking this, but I want to archvie it, so I'll copy it over to their own talk, for their ref in their own time. Chzz ► 19:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Zelder Paradox, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[multiple-1] Zelder, Martin (2008) “The Intrinsic Social Cost of Public Goods: Revising (Downward) the Optimal Size of Government,” Research Symposium on Bad Public Goods, Northwestern University, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/searlecenter/papers/Zelder_Social_Cost.pdf.

[multiple1-2] Zelder, Martin (1993) "Inefficient Dissolutions as a Consequence of Public Goods: The Case of No-Fault Divorce," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. XXII, 503-520.

[multiple2-3] Zelder, Martin (2009) "The Essential Economics of Love," Teoria, vol. 29, 133-150.

[1]

[2]

[3]