Talk:Heckscher-Ohlin theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] References and convention

I have no desire to cause conflict, and rarely revert non-malicious edits, but I feel in this matter I had no choice. First of all, concerning references, it does not matter that the original author did not use a particular book as his/her source; if the book cited by another editor can corroborate the article's content, then it is alright (at least, that's how I interpret WP:CITE). And as for the bolding of the original principle's statement, I have never seen such a convention in use on Wikipedia, and am not aware that the manual of style requires nor recommends its usage for anything other than the article title in the lead. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your intentions; however the book you quoted is of a same sort like citing Koran in an article about Bible because it mentions Old Testament somewhere. --PBS27 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bolding of the original principle statement makes the article more readable. If you've never seen it, it doesn't say anything about its usefulness. Nobody saw a PC fifty years ago, but it doesn't necessarily imply that a PC is a bad thing. If there were any people saying “Shit, I don’t understand the article, because the theorem itself is written in bold”, than I would consider it, but stubborn conservatives doesn’t is not my cup of tea. --PBS27 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Same implies for the other three theorems of the H-O Model, I can bet you won’t be able to find the principle theorem in that articles without spending considerable amount of time and energy and probably you wont find it anyway. --PBS27 09:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You are of course correct, but it's better to cite a sub-par source than not cite at all. Not citing sources is a huge contribution to our lack of credibility. If you have your own sources, then please, do cite them and remove the one I added. And as for bolding, the fact is that Wikipedia has conventions to follow. Although they are rarely set in stone, we owe it to our readers to present a common format for our articles. (And I don't know about you, but I didn't find the bolding made the article more readable; I tend to find bolding of text that's more than a few words long irritating.) Anyway, arguing over this is LAME, so I won't bother pushing the issue further. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)