User talk:Coral matters

November 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Toxic leader seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Social market economy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Economic_performance' section was heavily criticised on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_market_economy#Economic_performance

See As per my previous edit - much more of a bandaid than an attempt at fixing this, since I'm not a regular editor - I believe this section needs a proper rewrite before it comes close to Wikipedia's standards on quality and neutrality.

First off, the entire current premise of this section is flawed and fails at any sort of neutrality - quite spectacularly. While comparing the USA and the EU as stand-ins for laissez-faire and social market economies respectively makes sense intuitively, a surface-level comparison between an individual country and a supranational political/economic union cannot be mistaken for a fair comparison. That is, unless there is a deliberate effort to disparage the Rhine model. Not all EU countries have embraced the model, some have turned away from it, and some have been forced to. In fact, much of the 2008-2015 chain of recessions, or rather, the failure of the economy to spring back to life as quickly as the US', could be blamed on factors outside the Rhine model, in fact strictly contrary to it - in particular austerity: reduction in public spending. See:

   Criticism of the Troika,
   this paper[1],
   "the turn to belt tightening was badly timed and therefore much more costly in terms of long-term output loss than a more gradual, backloaded consolidation" [2],

Seeing as the economic growth of (the wealthier part of) the EU was consistent with the US' until 2008, I believe the comparative underperformance within the 1996-2020 comes primarily from the 13-year setback, where pre-2009 levels weren't reached until 2021 (2010 for the US, 2011 for Russia); that in turn being largely a 7 year hysteresis effect from reduced government spending during/after the 2008 crisis. "

And more. I put this right with constructive edits. Coral matters (talk)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Economy of Europe, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removed material that I originally added myself, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=1188446293 and that I transferred to another part of the article.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Economy of Europe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVdm (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Climate change in Europe. DVdm (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: https://sustainable-prosperity.eu/story/ is not a reliable source. See wp:Reliable sources - DVdm (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intentionally use an unreliable source, I won't use that source again. I feel you are being harsh over an honest mistake. Coral matters (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]