Talk:Cincinnati Time Store

message: Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 11:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: No connection with the Cincinnati Time Store I suppose. --Wetman 05:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oops. haha. RJII 05:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Really?  Because Warren himself said that it was?  Are stores which manage to stay in business for three years generally considered to be "successful"?  (NO!)  What about the labour colonies based on this seemingly brilliant principle, which were to follow?  Were they "successful"?  ("No", again).  The link between this and the time certificates given over a century later for the co-operative enterprises of the Relocation Administration are needed in the article as well.  2600:1004:B118:340:D8B7:1FF1:4B5B:49A8 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Succssful"? 

message: Copied text and references from Cincinnati Time Store to Robert J. Shiller.  See former article's history for a list of contributors.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Add text and reference copied from Cincinnati Time Store to Josiah Warren.  See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Text and references copied from Cincinnati Time Store to Time-based currency  See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: IMO,  should be deemed reliable, albeit not "peer reviewed."  Presented at a municipal function by the Cincinnati Public Library's head libarary. 
Steve Kemple  7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliability comes on the strength of the editorial body that backs the publication: an editorial board/policy, a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, the pedigree (reputed expertise) of the individual contributors. This source lacks all hallmarks of this. Simply presenting a paper is no different than what students do at the end of each semester. For all intents, this paper was self-published (or pirated) to Scribd—it doesn't appear in any edited volume/compilation. The act of review—and there are many valid ways of doing so—determines whether the publication is reliable for statements of fact. czar 15:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Exactly—CS13 is a "gallery" and they make no mentions of editorial vetting, especially for statements of fact. It's no different from an artist zine in how it's unsuited as source material for an encyclopedia. The snippet you cite doesn't mention Kemple's essay as part of the pamphlet's contents and neither does his CV. The CV further underscores the writer's background as an artist and not a historian. I'm baffled how anyone could have any blind trust for factual statements from this random PDF on the Internet. czar 16:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  CS13 is "Museum Gallery" according to them. We publish material from all sorts of organizations, including museums. Why do you think this organization is unreliable? Calling it a "zine" makes no sense, there's no evidence of that. Nor is it "random" we know exactly where it came from. Kemple's background is a BFA in art which is basically a whole lot of art history, and he is a professional librarian with access to excellent sources and research. I really don't see the problem here. You are taking things to the extremes of negativity. -- GreenC 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:GreenC.  Reliability is amply demonstrated.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  A BFA in art requires next to no historical training, but I can't believe that's even a point of debate in your determination of source reliability. This paper was not published by a reliable body. The basis of the author having a bachelor's degree confers nothing on whether the facts in the source are reputable. Being a gallery (it is not a museum) confers nothing on their editorial process as well (and no one has established that the presentation was even printed in that limited-run publication/zine). They've shown no signs of actually vetting this paper for truthfulness. czar 17:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to depend on the BFA program the requirements.  Well given the specificity of the facts, I do not believe Kemple is factually making it up about a store from the 1820s. If it was something controversial, opinionated, or where there is a political bent or something like that. I'm sure we could even email him for the sources he drew from, being a librarian he might welcome requests for sources. -- GreenC 18:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Email sent. These things often don't get a response, but I'll post if anything happens. -- GreenC 18:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...the author personally emailing you his sources doesn't change the fact that they weren't printed in the article because it isn't designed to be cited for statements of fact. The whole point isn't whether Kemple is correct but whether a general audience, reading this article, can trust the source based on its venue of publication. Kemple could publish the same essay on Scribd (which, again, usually hosts materials without permission of the author) and in The New York Times and it wouldn't change that the self-published essay is unreliable on the basis of its publication venue, or as I said in my first sentence above, "on the strength of the editorial body that backs the publication". I suppose the silver lining in all of this is having the author reiterate this point for himself on his credentials as a librarian. Instead he'll point you to the secondary sources that are already (or will be) in use within the Josiah Warren bibliography. czar 19:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

text: The author emailing the sources means we can use those sources in the article in support of or in replacement for Kemple. -- GreenC 19:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source

message: Economist Robert J. Shiller used the perceived failure of the Cincinnati Time Store as an analogy to suggest that cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are a "speculative bubble" waiting to burst
How does this have any relevance? Shiller compares "time money" experiments and Bitcoin on the basis of being failed experiments, not both being "speculative bubbles". Atop that, the articles are strickly clickbait—the news is that an economist "famed for his warnings about the dot-com and housing bubbles" is calling Bitcoin a bubble. The mention of CTS as an example of a "time money" experiment is strictly incidental. 
Content aside, on points of order, there is no reason to stack primary source references of Shiller's comment if the secondary source covers it. And for purposes of notability independent from Warren, it's literally a passing mention. czar 16:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles make the point that this was a first-time for this novel economic currency experiment.  In fact, one of them makes the point by using it in the very title of the article.  The readers benefit from context and perspective.  I would err on the side of too much of the marginally relevant, rather than too little of the relevant.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  A phrase's appearance in a headline is not in itself a sign of topic notability. Case in point is how the article goes into zero depth on the concept's importance. They're not assuming familiarity with the concept—they just used it as a hook. czar 16:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes.  Remove all the sources.  The articles mention the Cincinnati Time Store and Josiah Warren (it's founder and owner) in parallel, but you say they are about him.  then assert that the article is unsourced and should be deleted.  A self-fulfilling prophecy.  Not my first rodeo.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're thinking of another discussion. This section is just about these Schiller sources and how they offer readers no additional knowledge about the CTS because there is nothing in the sources of substantial commentary on CTS. It would fit (along with most of this article's contents) within time-based currency (where "time bank/store" redirects), because time banking is the subject of the source, not CTS. Which leaves only your other idle accusations, which sound like projection: When there are no defensible takeaways to write for a general audience from these sources on the topic of CTS, there is then no reason to keep them in the article—well, besides padding. czar 17:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are seeking to bury this into another article.  As Clausewitz reputedly said about diplomacy, war by other means. We will have to agree to disagree.  Cheers.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiller 

message: At some point, might make sense to refactor to be simply "Time store" (or Josiah Warren time store) so it can include the other stores. -- GreenC 18:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is already located in time-based currency, where time bank (a synonym for "time store") currently redirects. czar 19:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is specific to the stores by Josiah Warren who had his own flavor and history in early 19th C America. -- GreenC 19:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole point of summary style is to build within the parent article (time-based currency, Josiah Warren) until those sections/ideas become, based on an overabundance of sourcing, disproportionate for that page. Expanding time-based currency based on Warren's activities—it could use a dedicated section—ensures that a subtopic isn't split prematurely. czar 19:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is developed enough for a summary (ie. the lead section) to be dropped into both time-based currency and Josiah Warren with a Main Article links pointing back here. It's too long to drop the entire article into those articles due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:PRESERVE. -- GreenC 20:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactor