new citation source for reduced demand[edit]

the page says "The inverse effect, known as reduced demand, is also observed.[citation needed]" Here's a citation source, which I think backs up the idea of reduced demand for traffic. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of my changes to Induced Demand[edit]

[Moved from my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

You removed my modifications to the introduction of Induced Demand. My changes were better researched and better defended that what you restored.

What you restored claims that the term is "economic" and cites CityLab, which is not a source of economic information. It's a site used by urbanists, city planners, and such.

My changes cited a paper by Lee, Klein and Camus. It's very first sentence is "Although terms such as “induced demand” and “latent demand” have been used in transportation planning for several decades, the concept of induced demand has not been precisely defined nor has it been translated into an operational form suitable for modeling." QED, they are transportation planning terms and NOT economic terms.

Subsequent changes tried to add things to the "induced demand" page. I do not consider "film induced demand" to be a valid term. Google has only 8 hits for the phrase.

I consider "supplier induced demand" (or "physician induced demand") to be a separate term. In transportation, the shift in the demand-curve is cause indirectly by an increase in supply. In "supplier induced demand", that is not the case. Another argument is that the writing of "supplier induced demand" is often "supplier-induced demand" and not "supplier induced-demand". It is a very different term.

Please respond or restore my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnahas (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not remove that material you added, it's still in the article. And since that material was about the use of the phrase in economics, I restored that part of the lede that you removed.
What "you consider" is interesting, but not relevant. The material I restored was sourced, whatever you think of it.
BTW this is not the place for this discussion. I'm moving it to the article take page. Beyond My Ken (talk)

[end of moved material]

User:Beyond My Ken I disagree that the introduction that I changed was "sourced". There is a difference between having a citation and being sourced. Having a citation doesn't matter if the statements on Wikipedia have nothing to do with the materials cited.
The first citation was a City Lab article that never mentions that the terms are related to economics. That article only addresses traffic.
The other citation was a Wired article that states "... induced demand, which is economist-speak for when increasing the supply of something (like roads) makes people want that thing even more." It is not at all clear that that definition matches the text in the introductory paragraph.
I would not consider either citation a "source" for the intro paragraph that you restored.
Moreover, I believe this journal article is a better source than pop-sci websites like Wired and CityLab. It clearly states that the phrases were in use by transportation workers before proper economics came into the picture. It should be the source cited by the introduction.
Lastly, what "I consider" is relevant. I have a Masters in Economics from UT-Austin, a top 25 university. I have expert opinion on what is the same and what is different in the realm of economics.
Mdnahas (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism section: undue emphasis on single source[edit]

Hi all, I've tagged the 'Criticism' section with {'{One source|section|date=October 2023)), since its only references are two essays by the same author, Steven Polzin. Perhaps this could be upgraded to {'{Content)). 67.71.197.70 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the improvement advice - many more references to other credentialed authors making the exact same points added as references. More can be added at will. -- 85.220.29.158 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the long list of Steven Polzin's arguments again. There is no compelling reason offered for why this one person's arguments ought to be reproduced in detail in this article. I also added a ((what)) tag to WSP, whatever that is. Our WSP disambiguation page tells me it might refer to the Washington State Patrol, which is the local police force for the US state of Washington, but it is unclear. These edits just sort of assumed we're all supposed to know what WSP is, as if it is self-evidently an authority on this topic. Einsof (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead paragraph[edit]

@User:Beyond My Ken, can you please explain what was wrong with the recently amended lead paragraph? — HTGS (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, since you wish to make changes, why don't you tell us in what way the status quo lede needs to change, and in what way your edits improve it? Recall that the WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to make changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: – related to latent demand and generated demand – in the first sentence is a poor way of introducing those concepts, especially as those titles redirect to this article. It would be useful to the reader to define them properly early on. — HTGS (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: It is also useful to introduce the domain of the subject early, so instead of the awkward sentence at the end of the paragraph, (This is consistent with the economic model of supply and demand) we can give the relevant contextual domain in the first sentence. — HTGS (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: You might be a little confused about WP:ONUS though. It refers to the need for verification, and of course there is onus on editors to support their claims, but the claims I introduced are easily verifiable by the sourcing already in the article. — HTGS (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Get a consensus, otherwise, leave the article as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken Do you have any specific concerns with the changes made, or how I have outlined them above? — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they are not better than the existing text, and therefore do not improve the article. They appear to me to be making changes for the sake of making changes. Get a consensus if you want to institute your changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken I know that you have a baseline interest in keeping the page the same, and therefore you see the onus for change on me, but to help me understand, can you explain how the changes made the article worse? — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please get a consensus to change the article to your preferred version. If and when you start an actual consensus discussion, instead of just needling me, I will consider joining the discussion at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken I have a silent consensus from every other editor watching this now frustrating back-and-forth. You appear to have worked on Wikipedia for a while now, but you don’t seem to understand how it works. You cannot just oppose meaningful changes without substantive reason. That is the point behind Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". — HTGS (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baloney. You want a consensus, start a consensus discussion and get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus seeking

Are there any opponents to the above proposals, previously embodied by the change here?: [1] — HTGS (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beyond My Ken, do you have anything to say? — HTGS (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am opposed to the changes. There is not consensus to change. Reverting to disputed material without a consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken I am seeking consensus here. How do you propose we address the issue of defining latent demand and generated demand? — HTGS (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text as it exists is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken The text of the lead currently does not define either of the two terms. How do you understand this to be ideal? — HTGS (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur; the proposed change is not an improvement. I also think we should find a different citation for that first CityLab source; when it talks about latent and generated, it does so in the context of transportation, not economics. If not citation can be found, perhaps we can just move it to the next paragraph which is about transportation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an editor makes a change that neither helps nor hurts an article, undoing that change because it isn't an improvement is awfully close to an WP:OWN violation and it's definitely way out of line. I don't think this is a lateral change but even if I did, I'd still support it because what's the harm? City of Silver 21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concern is that "generated demand" doesn't seem to be a term in economics at all! I never heard it in my training, and a quick google search doesn't seem to turn up anything. "Latent demand" is a term, but I've only heard it used as a subset of, not a distinct concept from, induced demand. If nothing else, this proposed change has highlighted that the lede needs a rework!
Since there seems to be some interest here in a lede rework, perhaps based on HTGS' change, I'm going to start a new talk page section. I'm tired of going into the page history to see what the change looks like, so a new section displaying and formally proposing it may be useful! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it actually necessary to have the discussion of these economic theories in the lede at all? This is an article about an urban planning concept, which has been explained in economic theory terms in the past 20 years or so but has been known for nearly a century. Even the sources used for the economic concepts are sources about traffic planning. It seems to me like it could simply be removed (or incorporated into the sadly lacking "economics" section) and the paragraph starting "In transportation planning, ..." be made the opening paragraph, and it would not harm the article. The concepts of latent and generated demand are covered in the "definitions" section, and I don't think really need to be in the lede at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now there's an idea; perhaps we should make a disambiguation page, with "Induced Demand (Economics)". I've actually just finished drafting a stub for "Latent Demand", which perhaps I should put under "Latent Demand (Economics)" and leave Latent demand as the redirect it is. I feel that this would be a good way to obtain more clarity; discussing the two related but distinct concepts on the same page feels messy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories