Talk:Competition law

message: Which sources have been used for it? -- Vision  Thing -- 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere, lost in the ideological battles above, someone deleted the references I'd written in! If you look back in the histories you'll find them. But it appeared that one person in particular didn't like it! Please do put'm back in. Wikidea 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post war consensus and European Union law references 

message: I suggest simplifying the main section names - removing "Competition law" from them.--Kozuch (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to match the MOS, "Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy". Cretog8 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section names 

message: 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. Wikidea 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing material 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've changed my mind; placing it at the section on US law is probably best. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might remember that there was originally an entirely different picture there (or the DOJ building I think). I put that one in, because I thought it was by far the most competition law-specific image I could find. It's just good article practice to have a picture in the introduction. I don't really mind at all that that one isn't there, but I think one (or both) of should put one in that you do like.  Surely that's only fair, and more constructive. Wikidea 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, we should find something to stick in the introduction.  I'd like this to make Featured Article status some day. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: P.S. I'm a "legal scholar" myself, so I hope that I know what I'm talking about. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you're a legal scholar! And that you're being helpful. In fact I don't mind Bork being in there, and this skiff is part of the fact that the article is far from finished: the intro should of course summarise the theory section. Might I suggest attempting that? Wikidea 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot what I'd actually written in the intro. It works better now (you might notice that the intro was cleverly designed to be the reverse of the page's structure!) Wikidea 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some legal scholars have found that ..." 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd like to give you a lesson on the use of the future subjunctive tense. But I appreciate that in America - and for some Americans - grammatical usage is not as sophisticated. I also appreciate that you didn't just revert like a complete tool. As for your assertion about ownership issues, I call an article finished when I've put all footnotes into a sensible format, made it read properly straight through. I think that you should probably pay attention to the fact that the page did not exist before I came along. Wikidea 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. -- Vision  Thing -- 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I say that 14 months is long enough for an article to leave your womb. It can, should, and must be edited by others. Let it happen, and stop making personal attacks. (Good to know I'm not a complete tool. Thanks.) Cool Hand Luke 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, duh, but that doesn't mean that I should stand by while it's messed up by complete tools. Oh, and if you were referring to my grammar comments, I protest, that entirely was not a personal attack. It was an attack against a sizeable proportion of your country. :) Wikidea 09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership issues still?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: 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. Wikidea 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, much of what he has written may well be relevant for the US antitrust page. As I say, he is not interested in improving the encyclopedia, only trashing anything that doesn't conform with the views of his employers. Wikidea 14:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My employers don't have any views on the subject. But if you can tell me the official AEI position on Illinois Brick and Noerr-Pennington, which I think should be discussed in the article, I'd love to hear it. THF (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: 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)
replies: text: When the competition laws protect competitors rather than competition, it hurts consumers.  This is not a controversial proposition, and it is one that has been adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Separately, please review WP:NOT#CHAT.  Your personal opinion about Bork is quite irrelevant. THF (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Robert Bork citation makes no sense.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origin of modern competition law 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was able to find an article on a website for a division of the US National Archives regarding The Sherman Act. This act was created to break up large trusts that threatened consumer choice, and therefore, comsumer prices, through the bundling of all the different companies owned by the entity or individual under one umbrella 'trust'. The article I found only implies the "immediate effect" was to dismantle The Standard Oil Company. This and other companies were operated by the "robber barons" that had come to be in that era (ie: Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Morgan, to name a few).  However, one can only assume, from this implication, that this was to be the "immediate effect" mentioned in this section. FYI, the article I used to make that assumption can be found at: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51 , a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) division of the National Archives of the United States. I think we need to get consensus before altering the article, though. There is nothing civil about Civil War.Let's Talk! 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended" 

message: It needs to get the new TFEU articles numbers. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU part 

message: I refer to the final sentence of the "Principles" section:
:Different terms were used to describe this area of the law, including "restrictive practices," "the law of monopolies," "combination acts" and the "restraint of trade in india"
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)
thread_title:  "Restraint of trade in india" (sic) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Badly Written!! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QDuuptJY?url=http://www.cei.org/pdf/1615.pdf to http://www.cei.org/pdf/1615.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202615/http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm to http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified