Talk:Geography and wealth

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Geography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move.--Hús ö nd 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude and wealth → Geography and wealth — As discussed in AfD and DRV: The research field looks at broader geographical features, some of which are correlated with latitude (climate, diseases, agriculutre), others are uncorrelated (natural resources, access to waterways). ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support as nominator. ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contra Dekimasu, while latitude does feature heavily (especially in the lead) even the current version of the article is not so latitude-centric that Geography and wealth would be an inappropriate title. If the edits that need to be done get done (I voted delete in the original AfD & voted to restore in the DR in the expectation that the article will get fixed) then it just cannot stay at Latitude and wealth. Both are reasons to move, I think leaving it as-is is a bad idea, better to have deleted it. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Otherwise too much of the article, and editors' time, would end up trying to support that particular angle, when it could become a comprehensive survey. Altho I don't have much time at the moment, a rewording of the first paragraph could easily be done by anyone. Novickas 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Anything's better than this; but Climate and wealth would be better still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this article has been cleaned up significantly, but I think the title still has POV problems. "Geography and wealth" seems like a good answer, I'm not sure about "Climate and wealth" since I think climate is only one of the factors being discussed here. Mak (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I read the deletion debates, but this needs a major overhaul if it's to be moved. Geography and wealth would probably be a better topic, but as it stands, the article is about what the title says: latitude. For that reason I don't feel comfortable supporting the move. Dekimasu よ! 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Gallup-Sachs paper (page 50), you get a list of considered independent variables: Some are latitude-related (ecozones, malaria), others aren't (altitude, distance to waterways). The article now might be latitude-heavy, but the research considers other factors, and with a rewrite of the lead this article can be pointed in the right direction. Choosing one causal factor over the others is simply problematic for policy reasons. ~ trialsanderrors 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible additional source

I note here a new additional source that is related. It is a primary source academic article, the best version http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/wealth1000bc.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) I can link to may be pre-publication - at the very least I can't tell where it was published. On the other hand, it has a June 2007 publication date. An earlier version was published as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in 2006. It is being picked up by the discussion community, e.g. Brookings Institute. The paper is primarily about the effect of historical technology upon modern economic development, but does test geography in multiple ways as an alternative explanation (generally finding that historical technology is significant even when controlling for continent or latitude). The fourth paragraph of section 5 is a discussion of this aspect of the analysis, including a survey of significant sources on the issue. GRBerry 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]