Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 17 September 2009

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Werdnabot

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Rating requested for Wage slavery

An editor has requested that the article wage slavery be assesed for quality and importance. I would do it, but I'm too involved. Could someone take a gander and post a rating? Thanks LK (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This article looks really good. With some more polishing I think it could be a strong candidate for WP:GA or WP:FAC. One thing that did jump out at me is an over-use of direct quotations. A few are good, but in general a direct quote should be paraphrased and cited.

And I just noticed it's already been rated. Well, I was planning on rating it the same anyway :) -FrankTobia (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker

I have completed a major re-write of Francis Amasa Walker and am soliciting other editors' input, edits, and corrections to the article. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

some article importance changes

One or more IP editors have recently been changing the ratings of various articles, mostly focusing on increasing the importance of the Austrian school article to "Top", but also things like Mises and Keynes articles (which might both be rated too high as bios, but that's a different matter). I figured I'd give the heads-up here, and point discussion this way when I make reversions. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Plainly, the editors in question think that they are accomplishing something quite other than what they are. —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That does not appear all that plainly. Could you elaborate S. D.? Also this was not presented correctly by Cretog. Others also made the change besides I.P's. Reality seems to be that one or two people make the ratings. Austrian and Keynes stuff is very basic... and as such top importance. Both are nearly the same except for incidentals. skip sievert (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The “importance” ratings in question aren't there to steer readers; they are there to steer editors from this project and from a philosophy project. The effect of rating v Mises “top” isn't to hurtle readers to it, nor even competent editors. (The competent editors already have an idea of the importance of the Austrian School.) Nor is someone going to see the “low” rating assigned by that editor to Keynes and think “Goodness! I must immediately not read this article about this low-rated fellow Keynes!” —SlamDiego_←T 03:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for illuminating. Very interesting & creatively explained. Gracia. skip sievert (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Since edit waring continues on this issue. Let's have a vote to make it clear to everyone what consensus is here at the Econ Wikiproject. LK (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The only legitimate function of these ratings would be to direct editors' efforts, and they have no such effect in the case of these particular articles. Thus, what we'll get here is mostly just a sneering war. —SlamDiego_←T 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Whats the alternative, let drive by IPs set the ratings for our wikiproject headers? LK (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Since that's pretty much what they can do to the rest of each article and to its talk page, they'll still be able to reset the “importance” ratings after a vote, and a sneering war isn't going to help, I'd say that we could have forgone the sneering. —SlamDiego_←T 07:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to note, that this has been an exceedingly polite and productive discussion, and that the only occurrence of sneering so far has been in the above comments. LK (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Importance rating for Austrian school

• Mid - One of several heterodox schools. LK (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• High – One of the three founding schools of the Marginal Revolution. A significant and recurring influence on the mainstream of economic theory at least into the early '90s (notwithstanding that the work being incorporated had been done decades earlier). Still invoked by liberal and conservative policy makers and politicians. Still having a significant popular following. —SlamDiego_←T 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - Schools of economic thought aren't particularly important for an encyclopedia, specific ideas are. Austrian school is arguably less important than some other schools of thought, and few would rise to High. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - Maybe about to become High, given the eclipse of the mainstream free-market school in the light of the GFC, but Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball.JQ (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• High: Not my interest, but it's a major heterodox school with a fair following. It still influences mainstream economics (more than can be said of most heterodox schools of thought). CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• High: Hard to even call it heterodox as it is so close to what passes for mainstream. Not my interest either, but makes for intense reading, and really interesting critical analysis. skip sievert (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• High - a heterodox school that was a part of the mainstream and that had a major influence on its development. -- Vision Thing -- 11:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - One heterodox school among many, which is not vital to an elementary economics education. -FrankTobia (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• High: A school of economics that once made very influential contributions, and is now one of the most widespread heterodox schools. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Importance rating for Keynes

• High - Arguably the most important economist of the 20th century. LK (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• High – Schools inspired by his work had a brief but hegemonic grip on academic economics in the West. Once utterly embraced by the political mainstream. Again frequently invoked by social democratic policy makers and politicians after an eclipse. —SlamDiego_←T 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - This is a mood thing, I'm feeling that bios are overplayed, might think it qualifies for High in a different mood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretog8 (talk • contribs)
• High per LK JQ (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• High - For better or worse. The most important economist of the 20th. century? Not so much. skip sievert (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• High - one of the most influential economists. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• High - one of the top economists of the 20th century. -FrankTobia (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• High - as others have said, probably the top economist of the 20th century. Mainstream economics has incorporated much of his viewpoint. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Importance rating for Mises

• Mid -LK (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• High – Perhaps the first marginalist economist to explicitly break with quantified utility. Probably first to explain inflationary process in terms of individual behavior. Core theorist of a theory of the business cycle frequently invoked by liberal and conservative policy makers and politicians. First to publish central critique in the socialist calculation debate. —SlamDiego_←T 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - This is tricky. I feel Low is too low and Mid is too high. lean slightly to Mid. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid Notable as a contributor to business cycle theory, but overall much less important than Hayek or Schumpeter, except in the eyes of a small sub-sect.JQ (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• High- Ala SlamDiego - skip sievert (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - important economist but not as important as some others. -- Vision Thing -- 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - Per JQ, not as important as many others. -FrankTobia (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Mid - A fairly important economic theorist of an earlier period. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Close this thread following WP:VOTE (Misplaced Pages decisions aren't made by popular vote) and delete the ratings boxes as unsourced original research and soapboxing which mislead both the readers and editors who seem them. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to be clear that this is just a priority for the wikiproject and does not reflect the "importance" of the article itself. In fact, many wikiprojects have renamed that label to make that point clearer. We also have a scale to guide this section for the project. In any event, I've found the priorities are pretty much meaningless as people will work on whatever articles they want to work on and rarely guide the efforts of the wikiproject. Morphh 11:56, 06 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree they're meaningless, they're also misleading, flawed and wholly unsourced. Hence, they should be removed. Likewise with other projects. The scale rankings are also worrisome, misleading and more or less unsupportable, but not as harmful as the importance rankings. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they can really be too flawed or unsourced, as they only reflect our priority as a group to work on them (and we rarely come together as a group to improve articles - I think Adam Smith was the last one). They become somewhat helpful as wikiprojects get larger and article drives are pushed (WikiProject Biography for example). The scale rankings are not project specific, but reflect the article standards of Misplaced Pages as a whole. I do agree that the "importance" title can be misleading. If others think it's worth it, it would be easy enough to rename it to priority, which better reflects the meaning with regard to the project but even that can be confusing (and not sure it's worth the effort for something we don't use). Morphh 13:11, 06 July 2009 (UTC)

As well as renaming these “importance” ratings, they could be moved from infoboxes on Talk pages to someplace such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics/Priorities. That way, they would have less potential to mislead readers, and less value for those who want to use them to sneer. (I think that, no matter where placed, they will never have much practical utility, that few editors will ever be steered by them, though some cliques may use them to uselessly restate mutually agreed projects.) —SlamDiego_←T 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Spot on what I was about to say. Put them on their own project pages then, where only the very few editors who care about them know where to find them. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that they should be renamed to something less misleading (like wikiproject priority?), but we shouldn't get rid of them, I regularly go through the 'top' & 'high' importance articles with 'stub' or 'start' ratings to see if I can quickly bring them up to snuff. It's the first thing I do whenever I have extra time (not so much lately). LK (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are the "quality" rankings. Although they're often wrong, they're much less harmful. This "vote" was meant to be about the unsourced "importance" rankings, which I do think should be gotten rid of altogether, but which would cause little harm on their own project pages, away from the articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the ratings are important; I use them to decide which articles to work on when I'm looking to break out of the articles that I frequently edit. But of course they are easily misconstrued; I don't have a good solution for that. Perhaps just hiding the display? CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Anyone here know how to do template work, know how to tweak it so that by default it doesn't display 'importance'? Quality should still display as that tells the reader how reliable the information is.

Also, Gwen, we need both quality and importance rankings in order to know how to direct our energies. If you really think importance shouldn't exist, perhaps you could bring it up at the wikiprojects page, instead of here. That seems like a more relevant place to pursue that issue. LK (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, I didn't start this thread but rather, said I thought it should be closed. Also, editors can remove templates like these from any talk page if there is a consensus to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I created a sandbox for the template and change the scale to priority. It would continue to work if the parameter was defined as "importance", but would display it as priority. We would have to create the new categories, but I think all the articles would automatically move over. Morphh 12:36, 07 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Morph. As usual, great work! LK (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to hide the priority box by default? So that people don't get worked up and start edit warring over it? thanks LK (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what we can do. Since we use the {{WPBannerMeta}}, our customization options are limited. Morphh 12:22, 09 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have some direction on this but need some clarification. Are you saying to hide it if it does not have a priority assigned or if it does have a priority assigned, or both. Part of the reason for displaying it is to have people assign a priority if none exists, so we have to consider that hiding it in that case would reduce the activity of assessing the article. Morphh 12:54, 09 July 2009 (UTC)

On the assumption that these ratings are to be kept at all, the most important thing is that assigned priorities are not displayed on article Talk pages. Further, it should be easy to implement a default value of “unrated”, so that unassigned priorities are also not displayed on article Talk pages, but there will be a centralized listing of “unrated” articles. —SlamDiego_←T 13:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are unassigned values for both class and priority and there is a centralized listing at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Economics#Statistics. I don't agree with removing them from talk pages. This is a standard practice across WikiProjects and defined by the WikiProject Council, which I think we should follow. Morphh 14:04, 09 July 2009 (UTC)

Renaming it 'priority' is a great idea, but I think it should be visible, so that it can guide as many potential editors as possible, not only those who know how to search for it. Edit wars are rarely a big problem. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the WikiProject Council has issued guidance on this, we should keep it visible (although renamed as priority). To reduce edit warring, let's have internal econ wikiproject policy that the rating should in general only be made by econ wikiproject members, and if we see edit warring, we should revert to ratings made by wikiproject members. If two or more wikiproject members disagree, and cannot come to an agreement, and they feel it is important enough an issue, then it should be brought to this talk page for resolution. LK (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the changes to set it to Priority (instead of Importance). I've created the new categories and articles should automatically update to reflect the changes. We might have to wait until tomorrow before the statistics table is updated by the bot, unless someone wants to kick it off manually. Morphh 18:05, 09 July 2009 (UTC)

Update, I'm still working on this... There are a lot of sub-categories to create as we use the quality / importance intersect, which creates sub-category classifications like Category:GA-Class, High-priority Economics articles. However, we're having an issue with the bot or something, the articles show the correct priority category, but is not reflected when you actually go to the categories. So, I'm trying to figure that out. Also, the statistics are not updating on the main chart. I believe this is because the bot looks for an importance categories first, which is empty, and does not look any further. I believe that once the importance categories are deleted, the bot will see no importance category and look for priority, which contains all our articles. I tried to do a speedy delete on those old categories but since we still have the old sub-categories mentioned above, it sees it as not empty. So, hopefully I can get all those sub-cats strait, then delete the main cats, so that all will work in wiki-harmony. :-) Morphh 12:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

Wage slavery is desperately in need of help. There are some WP:OWNership issues as well, but I think that if the article is improved the problem will largely go away.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it'll be a good use of our time and energies. It looks like it would take a sustained effort, along the lines of the tussle over the inflation article we went through late last year to bring that article in line with the mainstream understanding of inflation. Unfortunately, we have more important articles that still need fixing. LK (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

True enough. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That does not seem like a good rationale for letting someone (99.2.224.110) turn the article into a personal blogging site. skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since CRGreathouse, Skipsievert, Visionthing and IP:99.2.224.110 are actively editing it, now might be a good time to have a look and work at bringing it up to snuff. LK (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Minimum wage

A much narrower dispute at Minimum wage about the weight that should be put on a literature summary by Neumark and Wascher. Some additional views might help achieve a resolution. (You can see my view on the talk page, but I won't canvass it here). JQ (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Stigmatized Property

Linked in from an article about some movie. Pretty sure that the article was spookier than the flick. the article was replete with 'woo-woo' and legal inaccuracies. IANAL, nor am I an economist, so I'm afraid I was working blind in a number of ways. I find the legal concept very interesting, having occasionally spotted a news article over the years (usually in the 'would you believe these yokels?' section. feel free to improve on my work - in my opinion the original article simply took an extremely shaky premise and ran with it as gospel. regnad kcin75 7/11/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regnad kcin75 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Link: Stigmatized property CRETOG8(t/c) 03:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Project categories need work

See Category:List-Class Economics articles, you got some with "priority", some with "importance". You also got some pretty full wanted categories like Category:Unassessed-Class, Unknown-priority Economics articles. A lot can probably be fixed just editing the template. Rocket000 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the stats box gives all 0s. Rocket000 (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The fellow principally wrestling with these issues is aware of the problems, which are largely an artefact of an on-going conversion process and of his attempts to improve functionality. —SlamDiego_←T 06:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've created all the new categories now, and have marked the others for deletion... so hopefully everything will be updated in the next day or so. Morphh 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think everything should be working correctly now. Let me know if you see any additional issues. Morphh 13:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement over lead in History of Economic Thought

Skip and I are having a disagreement over the lead at History of economic thought, would appreciate some comments on the issue on the talk page. Thanks, LK (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Macmillan Committee

Could someone please take a look at this article? I'm not an economist and need a sanity check. Strikehold (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify your problems with it? I gave it a quick read through, and it seems fine. NPV and very well cited. LK (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have any specific problems, I just wanted to make sure I didn't include any glaring errors or omissions. Thanks for the help. Strikehold (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you wrote the article single-handedly. Nice work! LK (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks again for giving it a look over. Strikehold (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Biflation

I don't see an AfD section here but you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Biflation. Ben MacDui 15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Check Money burning

Hello, I've just started a new article, Money burning. I'd like to get it on WP:DYK in the next few days. Before that happens, could someone knowledgeable please check it out and make sure it isn't completely wrong? Also a section on game theory would be nice. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. —SlamDiego_←T 02:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Urg. I don't want to agree with SlamDiego on this one, but I lean towards thinking they're correct. I like the beginnings of the article, though, so I'm very willing to be talked into changing my mind. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see the problem? Melchoir (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You article is likely to not be inaccurate per se. But, it appears to be poorly sourced. The sources don't fully back up much of what you state in the article. If you put forward a view or argument that has not already been put forward in a reliable source, that constitutes original research or synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYN). OTOH, policy is that if the statement is not contentious, it doesn't need a source, so I'm inclined to think that the article is 'ok' as it stands.

I thank everyone for commenting, and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this discussion to date has not been constructive. Let me assure you that I am familiar with content policy, and giving me WP links is a waste of time. Neither did I come here for an opinion poll. What I lack is a broad view of economics. Tell me which statements you are concerned about. Quote them here if you like. Better yet, use the article talk page. Feel free to apply {{citation needed}} if that helps you. As it is, I don't even know which sections you are looking at. Melchoir (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed some things in the article. Hope this helps. LK (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It does, thanks! Melchoir (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

Things are getting quite heated over at the Paul Krugman page. If you have time, it might be worthwhile dropping by the talk page. Thanks, LK (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I think there are some BLP violations going on there. More eyes would be helpful. Thanks, LK (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, the specific issue of relevance to WP Economics is whether Krugman, in the opening sentence of his entry, should be described as a "liberal economist, columnist, author" or as a "Keynesian economist, liberal columnist and author". Comments at Talk:Paul Krugman#Liberal economics please. Rd232 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the following edits by Vision Thing:

"Pulitzer prize-winning historian David M. Kennedy stated, "Like the rants of Rush Limbaugh or the films of Michael Moore, Krugman’s shrill polemic may hearten the faithful, but it will do little to persuade the unconvinced". 01:15 1 September, 2009

According to The Economist, in 2003 Krugman was ranked as the second most partisan American political columnist, behind only Ann Coulter. The Economist concluded that Krugman gives lay readers the illusion that his personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory.The Economist, Face Value: Paul Krugman, one-handed economist

Krugman, Paul (2006-11-30). "Paul Krugman on the Great Wealth Transfer". Rolling Stone. rollingstone.com. Retrieved 2009-08-01. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)</ref> As the main instrument for improving the economy Krugman advocated promotion of spending on housing and other durable goods with low interest rates. Among other measures he proposed were increased government spending on infrastructure, military operations, unemployment benefits, and income subsidies for lower-income families. He argued that these policies would have a larger impact in promoting economic recovery, and would only temporarily increase the budget deficit. He has also criticized Alan Greenspan for supporting the Bush tax cuts, when, according to Krugman, Greenspan was "constantly lecturing politicians on the importance of eliminating deficits and paying off debt" during the Clinton presidency. 20:03, 4 August 2009

In both cases, the text written by Vision Thing was a distortion of the source, and the sources given were not appropriate for the article. Vision Thing has shown a consistent pattern of disruptive editing on this article which has wasted time for many contributors. His edits are extremely biased and he obviously does not understand WP:NPOV. Furthermore, he shows an obvious lack of understanding of the subject matter of this article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Pie method

Dmcq (talk · contribs) writes:

I've put a prod on Pie method which is a putative method of fair division because I believe it is simply wrong. I actually found a place on the internet though where somebody quoted it though not as the 'pie method' and it probably didn't come from wikipedia! I sort of wonder if it is notably wrong and I should keep it and say it is rubbish? Perhaps I should put it under Proportional (fair division) as an attempt which is wrong and explain - but then the explanation could be counted as WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought this may be interesting to members of this WikiProject. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I just glanced at the article, and cannot vouch for its particulars. But the method itself can certainly be supported on game theoretic grounds. Under standard assumptions of preference, the person effecting the division maximizes his expected well-being by effecting an equal division. (It gets more complicated if the first person both places a premium on the satisfaction of the other party, and expects that other party not to put a premium on the well-being of the divider.) And this method is well established in folk lore and wisdom. —SlamDiego_←T 04:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the two-person case? That's covered at Divide and choose. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see now that “Pie method” begins talking about the two-person case, and then attempts to extend it. If the two-person case is well covered at “Divide and choose”, then I say, by all means, just turn “Pie method” into a redirect. If there's an appropriately documented way to extend the method to more persons, that should be added at “Divide and choose”. —SlamDiego_←T 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of “reliable sources” just for the sake of discussion here, what problem do you have with the extension? On the assumption of mutual disinterest, &c, the first divider again maximizes his expected share by excising 1/n of the total, where n is the number of participants. —SlamDiego_←T 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The method is vulnerable to parties with nonzero knowledge of others' preferences, to collusion, to imperfect cuts, to externalities, and most every other flaw you could find. Aside from the issues of WP:RS and WP:OR, of course.

Have you heard this name for the procedure in question (2-person or otherwise)? I'm wondering if it's a good redirect or not.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of these objections are addressed by very conventional assumptions. Granted that either the assumptions should be explicitly stated or the reader should be given a link to a dicussion of them. An editor already noted the issue of collusion. And the problem of imperfect cuts is like the problem of a participant being potentially blind and palsied — true but out of the relevant conceptual space.

The need to avoid “original research” and to cite “reliable sources” is of course very important, and might prove fatal to an attempt to discussion the extension in a Misplaced Pages article. —SlamDiego_←T 07:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are published fair division methods that are stable to small judgment errors, so I wouldn't call this "out of the relevant conceptual space". CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whose notion of “small” are we using? —SlamDiego_←T 01:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find you a reference. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've come across this idea before - and I'm pretty sure it was in print. I don't remember though, and without sourcing (and the article is 5 years old) it should go, and the need to elaborate assumptions is moot. Rd232 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a bit on the web You cut I choose where the incorrect method is used.

The article Proportional (fair division) has a few fair division procedures for three or more people. I think the 'last diminisher' is probably the closest correct one to what was described.

Here's an example I just made up showing 'Pie method' is not a method of fair division for three people.

Suppose you have a pizza with jalapino chillis sprinkled unevenly on top so they are mostly in one third of the pizza. And there are persons Tom, Dick and Harry who are entitled to equal shares. And suppose also that Harry is a jalapino junkie who mainly wants the chillis but the other two don't mind either way.

The first person Tom cuts a third as exactly as he can out of the pizza which just happens to have most of the chillis on. It is offered to Dick first and he accepts it. Then there isn't enough of the chillis left in the remainder of the pizza to give Harry his fair 1/3 share. Dmcq (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But, under this argument, the classic two-person case is also “unfair”. Suppose that Dick is out of the picture, and the jalapeños are entirely on one half of the pie. According to one of your implicit assumptions, the “fairest” way to divide this pie gives exactly that half to Harry (as Tom does not care). Yet, if Tom cuts, he will (under another of your assumptions), divide the pie into half randomly. The probability of the “fair”est division would be literally 0.

One might as well propose dividing a child in this way (without recipients being given a Solomonic option to pass on their shares). The method is plainly intended to be applied to goods and to services of a particular sort. —SlamDiego_←T 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The simplest fair division condition is that everyone gets at least 1⁄N by their own valuation, this is proportional (fair division). Exactly half is fair for two but more is also fair and better. If Tom cuts the pizza randomly in half as he doesn't care then Harry will just pick the bit with more jalapeños, in fact he will almost certainly get more than half as far as he is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. It's pretty clear that most people would see a division as unfair if it injured one innocent person without benefiting another, when this is not intrinsic to an “equal” division, which is exactly what happens in the above case of the half-jalapeño pizza. (Assuming that Tom and Harry are innocent, which, admittedly, is very questionable in the case of Harry.)

Assume that Tom is indifferent both to pickles and to jalapeños, that Harry regards them as complements, and that all of the pickles are on one half and all of the jalapeños are on the other. In Harry's eyes, the only way that the pie can be divided such that he gets 1⁄n of its value is if the pie is divided into two shares with an equal amount of each. The probability of Tom effecting such a division is 0.

Of course, we could amend the claim about fairness to a claim that the relevant value from which to compute the fraction is the post-division value, but this would mean that a division that reduced the value to at or below zero (as presumably in the case of the aforementioned baby) would be fair.

Again, the method is only meant to be applied to certain sorts of goods and of services. —SlamDiego_←T 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Having pickles and jalapeños linked in that way hardly sounds simple. There is a theory of fair division but it assumes everyone's values are positive and additive or at least a weak version of that. Anyway the point isn't to ensure both people view the other as getting the same as themselves, it is to ensure they get at least 1⁄n by their own valuation. They don't care what the other person gets. There's more complex versions where one wants to make sure no one envies anybody else but that's automatic for two people if they get at least a half by their own valuation. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I"m not saying that having pickles and peppers linked in that way is simple; I'm saying that it's easy to construct goods and preferences such that the classic method won't result in a fair division. Nor did the pickles and peppers example involve seeking to get what the other person got per se. The point is that the classic method assumes something about the effective nature of the good or of the service, just as the above proposed extension assumes something about the above proposed good or service. It's fine to note when we are outside their frameworks, but simply calling them “wrong” is inappropriate. —SlamDiego_←T 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the Pie method is a classic method? If so it deserves inclusion even if wrong by any reasonable criterion. That is what I was wondering about originally. Misplaced Pages is based on notability not truth. However I was unable to determine if it was notable. Have you seen it referenced somewhere other than a web page? Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been referring to the two-person method (of which the discussed extension is not the only possible extension) as “classic”. As to the extension, I'm unsure that it's “notable”, and I'm not personally aware of a prior statement of it in a “reliable source”. The remarks of CRGreathouse lead me to believe that such a source could be found, but that belief isn't an adequate substitute for the sourcing.

The main value, for the purposes of writing articles, of discussing the truth or falsity of the method is to direct us for what to seek in the literature. For example, if the method indeed were simply wrong, then we'd be surprised (though, sadly, not shocked) to find peer-reviewed literature that said otherwise, and there'd be less hope of finding any discussion at all. Likewise, if it were in fact applicable to any division, then we'd be more surprised to find criticisms of it. —SlamDiego_←T 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain I've seen the two-person case in the literature. It's basic enough that it might be hard to find outside a textbook or the like.

Here's a reference to the two-person case: "DD2 is related to the game 'one divides, the other chooses.' In this game, one player divides, say, a candy bar into integral pieces: 99% vs. 1%; 98% vs. 2%; etc. The other player chooses which portion it will take. The chooser has the advantage in this game, because if the divider does not make a perfectly even 50-50 cut, the chooser can take the larger portion." from Brams & Taylor, "Three solutions to divide the dollar". There are surely better ones in basic game theory texts.

The 'pickles and jalapeños' example shows that, if you allow non-weakly additive preferences, the two-person method is Pareto-inefficient. (This isn't a fatal flaw; that's a hard case.) But the same example shows that the three-person Pie method does not even produce a fair division, and that's where it transitions from flawed to wrong in my book. (Simpler example: the cutter values the pie uniformly and cuts a third that happens to have all the cherries. The second and third players value only the cherries.)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to have followed the discussion. The pickles-and-jalapeños pie was a twist on a partly-jalapeños pie suggested by Dmcq, which is isomorphic to the cherry pie in your example. Dmcq explicitly located the issue of additivity in discussing the still-nastier pie. And, naturally, no claim was made that the particular extension under discussion of the classic method would somehow work for values of ${\displaystyle n}$ greater than 2. The point of the pickle-and-jalapeño case was not to find where the extension would work while the classic method failed; it was to show that each of these methods presumes something about the nature of the good or service to be divided, which presumption is not true of all good or services. If we define “fair” in some unnatural way, then we can recover the claim of “fairness” for any method, but a loss of Pareto optimality without a gain in equality will not accord with every-day notions of fairness; it will simply be seen as “unfair” that Harry couldn't get a better slice, when it could have come without loss to Tom. To call this extension wrong but the classic method right is simply inappropriate. They are both a right tool for their respective tasks, though the wrong tool for other tasks. —SlamDiego_←T 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the extension that is in the article Pie method that is being discussed. It's an extended answer to your question to me, "what problem do you have with the extension?" under the assumption you specified.

The classical method is envy-free; the extension is not. Does that work for you? That's pretty much the standard condition for fair division problems.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work for me. The problem is in your reference to “the standard condition”; it is not the standard condition used by lay-people; it is not the condition that the inventors of the classic method — which predates modern economics by millennia — were seeking to meet. Nor did the editors who gave us the article on the extension signal that they were using “fair” in the sense of some technical jargon, rather than in an every-day sense. I don't mind your insisting that the extension doesn't meet some criteria that the classic method does; I object to declaring either method as wrong by virtue of finding situations that one or both is really not meant to cover in the first place. —SlamDiego_←T 08:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'm confused by what SlamDiego is referring to when he talks about an extension. Anyway the Divide and choose article is probably right to be a bit discursive rather than just fit in as a type of fair division. It was around long before the theory was invented after all. So I guess the additivity criterion should be added there as well rather than just being assumed and it would make the article more self contained. It doesn't look to me like pie method even deserves to become a redirect. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty plainly, the method in “Pie method” is an extension of the classic method for dividing a pie amongst two parties. There is some disagreement here as to whether the extension is “wrong”, but even were it wrong it would still be an extension. —SlamDiego_←T 08:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Im the absence of “reliable source” discussion of the extension, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with redirecting “Pie method” to a discussion of the classic algorithm. Many people will almost certainly search for discussion of the classical method by that name. Instead, I'm not sure that “Pie method” is a good name for the extension (were a “reliable source” found) because, again, it is not the only possible extension. —SlamDiego_←T 08:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, the only sensible options are redirecting it and deleting it as an unlikely redirect. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of “reliable sources”, I agree. I favor a redirect. —SlamDiego_←T 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Frank Fetter

Frank Fetter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_Zero 16:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman article issues

Any one interested in the article and its surrounding ideas please come to overview and engage in editing for a broader consensus of ideas . Currently the article is mostly too small as to ideas of what is good for inclusion... or not. Please pile in with ideas and suggestions. skip sievert (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles listed at AFD

• Unsolved problems in economics (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussion (or even to the article if possible). Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Markov chains and Category:Markov models

There is a naming dispute considering the correct name for the category for the main article Markov chain and related articles, see WP:CFD. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Skewing of the Great Depression article.

I recently looked at the article on the Great Depression and was shocked by the skewing of the article away from mainstream (Keynesian & Monetarist) views towards right-wing and libertarian viewpoints. e.g. the assertion that the depression was caused by money expansion by the Fed in the 1920's, and that it was made worse by New Deal policies, that the economy would have quickly recovered except for Roosevelt, and that the deficit spending during WWII did not help to pull the economy out of recession.

I edited it to better reflect the views of mainstream economists and economic historians (not nearly enough), but was quickly reverted by User:Vision Thing. I have since gone through the edit history of the page, and find that it was the edits introduced by Vision Thing that over the course of the last half-year, has been slowly but relentlessly making the article look like something out of a right-wing think tank. I'm greatly troubled by this. I think, no matter the world-view of an individual editor, the onus is on that editor to try find out, and reflect, the mainstream viewpoint in any article that he/she is editing. Vision Thing's failure to do so is, I feel, not acceptable behaviour by a member of WikiProject Economics, nor by any member of the Misplaced Pages community.

In interest of full disclosure, I should also reveal that Vision Thing has previously reported me for violating 3RR, as reported here . However, I would like to note that Vision Thing has reported several reliable positive long term contributors for 3RR, and it appears that when, he has a conflict of views with other editors, he has a tactic of baiting other editors into breaking 3RR and then reporting them to have them blocked.

There have been other issues with Vision Thing before. See for example, this. I have also noted before that taken as a whole, Vision Thing's edits only serve to push a particular POV. Very few, if any, of his edits are motivated solely by a desire to make a better encyclopedia. He doesn't clean up for the sake of cleaning up, if he adds something, it's to support a particular POV, if he deletes something, it's against his preferred POV. As such, I would like to propose a RfC on Vision Thing's edits. If the users here support this, I will start an RfC on Vision Thing in the appropriate forum.

LK (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the user name in the category title above as that violates discussion page guidelines . I think thats a bad idea, and bringing up fake charges by a disgruntled user is really a bad idea as to plagiarism supposedly, you are also blaming another editor for making you break the 3 revert rule? I recently looked at the article on the Great Depression and was shocked by the skewing of the article away from mainstream (Keynesian & Monetarist) views towards right-wing and libertarian viewpoints. e.g. the assertion that the depression was caused by money expansion by the Fed in the 1920's, and that it was made worse by New Deal policies, that the economy would have quickly recovered except for Roosevelt, and that the deficit spending during WWII did not help to pull the economy out of recession. In effect you are pushing your so called mainstream perspective also, and I have noticed that you are an advocate in that sense.

I have edited back and forth with Vision Thing and found him receptive and willing to cooperate as to editing ideas and direction. He also sources his material and cites his material. I am not into Keynes or Hayek or Rothbard or right or left as to the political economic system. Calling people out this way as to a general put-down probably is just going to escalate any situation. Try bringing your views to the talk page of the article in question and working on consensus. Also the so called ideas of mainstream are greatly over done and probably a new interpretation of what that actually means in regard to economics can be done. I fail to see much of a difference between that and the other known concepts like the Hayek stuff as to the big picture. It pretty much is all Adam Smith 24-7, anyway. An Rfc... thing like that would turn into a nasty forum for political and economic disinformation so, no. skip sievert (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that Vision Thing has a different point of view put that he is alters articles so that they reflect his POV. I have noticed this in several other articles as well, including Fascism, Left-wing politics, and Right-wing politics. I would definitely join in an RfC/U on the Paul Krugman article. (RfC/U's are supposed to relate to individual articles.) The Four Deuces (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The thought of an RFC/U also crossed my mind. BTW, you say "RfC/U's are supposed to relate to individual articles"; where does it say that? Rd232 12:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I had just assumed that a dispute related to one article, but I suppose it could be more than one. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I share LKs concerns regarding User:Vision Thing. Relentless fringe POV pushing, article ownership and application of double standards regarding the inclusion of material. An RfC is long overdue.JQ (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is getting nasty already. All the ultra conservative Keynes econo people vs. the Austrians in a slam down. This was and is a bad idea. This really is an ideological battle, and that is all it is. The same players vs. the same players. That is unfortunate, because the idea here is to present information. Obviously some of the editors above tag team articles as to pov. Ganging up on a user is not cool. Also defending so called mainstream values by people that consider themselves mainstream on Misplaced Pages as economists is really partisan and really not pretty to look at. An RFc is long overdue... oh really. I don't think so. And, I think it is very bad form to single out a productive editor because of ideological differences.

Not being into Keynes or Austrian stuff I find it kind of overly negative for a bunch of users to negatively accost each other over such trivial junk. Also note that Keynes and Austrian come up about a horse a piece, as to importance And, if there is more than a semi hill of beans of difference between the two concepts it is lost in the shuffle of accusations here. skip sievert (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a particularly helpful contribution, skip. This is not an ideological battle, it's about how one editor goes about editing. I count four editors (including myself) who think an WP:RFC/U might be warranted. A Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, by the way, is just that: a request for comments on a user's conduct, which gauges how widely perceived problems with an editor are felt, and attempts to find voluntary solutions with that user. It's not like an WP:ANI report - blocks and bans etc are not an option. It's an attempt to reform a user's behaviour, not sanction it. Rd232 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, an RFC needs careful framing of the dispute in question, and it needs evidence of clear prior attempts to solve it. It may be that before an RFC, those editors who have problems with VT's behaviour should contact VT and explain what the issue is, and go from there. If he doesn't respond positively, then an RFC can be framed. The attempt to contact VT could perhaps be drafted here. Thoughts? Rd232 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On Talk:Paul Krugman I asked if anybody was interested in formal meditation. Except for skip sievert, nobody was. If you want to start RFC/U please do. I already envision this ending up in front of Arbcom, and I can guarantee you that behavior of you, LK and TFD won't look nice in their eyes. -- Vision Thing -- 11:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well (a) I made a big effort to move things forward on that page without mediation, which I thought premature. (Maybe at this point it would be helpful.) (b) the behaviour which people are raising issues about goes well beyond a single article. (c) Your final sentence sounds like a threat, rather than an attempt to resolve the situation. Rd232 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, if people who think an RFC is necessary (and have wider experience with VT) want to draft something here, that can serve as both an opportunity for VT to respond and avoid an RFC, or as preparation for it if the response isn't very constructive. Rd232 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a blog or forum to attack other users with the same cluster of pov advocates, and as has been mentioned an effort to find compromise and peace on the article was made a long time ago and rejected or not commented on by people involved mostly . Running an attack on another editor because of ideological differences seems apparent here to this outsider of the two groups. It's an attempt to reform a user's behaviour end quote. Maybe you assume to much in this case as to trying to modify anothers pov. The approach here and on the article discussion page is close to taunting and baiting. Constructive editing goes beyond that. Note that L.K. formerly has tried to remove some aspects or greatly reduce mention of Austrian approach on multiple articles including this one previously as to it even being notable in particular as to a category, and he as well as others have referred to it as fringe or not mainstream as a negative debating point History of economic thought, so there is a history of behavior in regard to that information. Reminder, I am a neutral party here, or at least not remotely pov influenced by either Keynes or Mises. skip sievert (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to consider yourself neutral, but what precedes it indicates otherwise; and you're welcome to consider yourself an outsider, though that implies a definition of two opposing groups that quite possibly neither accepts (certainly I'm not in a Yay Keynes Group - I'm just after good, neutral, well-sourced articles). You should note too that calling people "POV advocates" (and saying that this discussion is part of an ideological battle) is a violation of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you have a problem with a user's behaviour, follow dispute resolution. That is what is being discussed here for VT. As to the mediation on that single article - at the risk of repeating myself, it seemed premature at the time, but probably isn't now. Rd232 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. And escalating the argument is not going to help. Mostly it appears that fans of Krugman are accusing another user here, for introducing criticisms of Krugman into that article and introducing notable info into other articles which is sourced, but considered probably wrongly to be fringe by some so called mainstream economists, and mainstream means Smith and Keynes now a days. Note how the topic here is phrased in the heading above. Skewing and then an editors name was mentioned which has since been removed, because that is a violation of talk page guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to start an RFC/U. Can anyone point me to the best place to start the process?JQ (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In view of the need to get a dispute certified by a second user within 48 hrs (WP:RFC/U), it may be better to draft the issues to be covered in your userspace first, and invite others to comment on whether they think it sounds about right, and amend if necessary. Otherwise you can end up with nobody certifying your particular view of a widely-recognised dispute. Rd232 09:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, everybody, can you find a way to kick Vision Thing off the encyclopedia? He wrecks everything he tries to touch. The same, slow, relentless pushing of some narrow view is repeated over and over. I've given up on History of economic thought because I have real life work. The Great Depression page is the latest, it seems, in a long line of disruptive behaviour. I'd really like to know what he does, because you can bet your stars it has nothing to do with economics. I would place a bet that he's a politics student at some second rate university. Wikidea 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything you are blatantly breaking Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks with that comment Wikidea. That is over the top making a personal attack Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. History of economic thought is a good article article in which V.T. contributed positively and not in any way disruptively. It is stable and it is presenting good information. It is not a good idea to bandy around the word disruptive. Also it is noted that the mainstream defenders of what passes for economics these days, and that includes people that refer to themselves as economists (mainstream) above are gunning stridently, in my view to persecute another editor that may have differences, even though those differences are sourced and explained.

As I said toward the top of this thread... This is getting nasty already. All the ultra conservative Keynes econo people vs. the Austrians in a slam down. This was and is a bad idea. This really is an ideological battle, and that is all it is. The same players vs. the same players. That is unfortunate, because the idea here is to present information. I do believe this whole series of misguided posts, started in this section, which looks much like an attack blog on a user be removed. Dispute resolution, if there is a problem and not singling out negatively one user to dump on because of content disputes. skip sievert (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you sit in the corner and have a big cry about it. "Miss, the big boys are making personal remarks again! I don't like it". You're a singular waste of space yourself, and don't waste my time with your silly little gripes. I couldn't care less what you think. Wikidea 10:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, I'm counting you vs everyone else as far as this issue goes. Thus far, none except you have had a good word to say about VT's 'editing' style. LK (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with VT's editing style and I haven't read the GD article, so I'm speaking ignorantly here but I will say that both points of view should be represented fairly and no view should be asserted as being "the truth" (be it VT or LK's version). Attribute the opinions and let the reader decide. Morphh 19:56, 09 September 2009 (UTC)

Without taking a stand on whether Austrian school stuff counts as "fringe" or not, but surely it's the case that there are viewpoints, such as the Keynesian and Monetarist ones, that are *more* common than the Austrian and other libertarian viewpoints. Cleansing other viewpoints in favor of an Austrian viewpoint is clearly out-of-bounds. I've only glanced at the Great Depression article and have no comment on whether an unacceptable skewing did in fact occur there, but if it did, it would be worth discussing. Gruntler (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of an RfC/U is not to ban someone but to determine whether or not they have violated Misplaced Pages policies and determine how to correct the situation. While it may be frustrating to deal with some editors, remember that during an RfC/U that all users' conduct can be brought under scrutiny. Anyway, I have drafted a possible complaint that I will post on User talk:Wikidea. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, you need to do better than that in terms of diffs. And the dispute isn't just about one page, is it? Rd232 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You start by stating the dispute then present diffs. I just mentioned my experience. Here's a link to archived RfCs that shows how to and how not to. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I generally agree w/ LK. We shouldn't parrot the Keynesian views. Obviously one of the more important Economic Histories of the 20th century was A Monetary History of the United States. But it behooves us to anchor articles in the best possible scholarship. And I object somewhat to the characterization made above that Keynesian/monetarist views are merely more common. In many cases they are not only more common but better elucidated and better supported by empirical work. I also want to point us backward to older discussions on these pages (see the search function I just added for the archives). I feel that for many general topics on economics Austrian school views are over-represented. I don't have a good reason why (though I have mny conjectures). Protonk (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the edits to the article I find that Vision Thing is often relying on poor or controversial sources, e.g., the Black Book of Communism. He is not presenting a monetarist or even Austrian analysis, merely injecting a fringe POV. In fact I do not think he has provided any academic references to his edits. While I do not think one needs to be an economist to edit the article, one should be familiar with the subject and have read the literature. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I attempted (and failed) to informally mediate a dispute at Economic freedom some time ago. The discussion starts at Talk:Economic_freedom#Edit warring. I don't think it is fair to say that VT never used or understood academic sources. The issue was his willingness to slowly edit war over changes or force reams of discussions in order to maintain an article in a preferred revision. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles on broadly economic topics such as this should carry most (if not all) outlooks drawn from sundry economic theories as published by academics along with other notable sourced commentary. The narrative voice shouldn't give any of these published notions sway, but weighting can bring some notion as to whether some outlooks get more coverage in the article than others. Editors should keep in mind, lots of readers are smart enough to know if the article is flogging some PoV. Keen readers, even if they happen to share that PoV, can be driven away by this, since they've likely come to the article for an encyclopedic overview of sources on the topic, say, as a way to think for themselves about how things might mesh together. If they want a narrow take on this topic, there are thousands of books and websites which already do this, not at all what en.Misplaced Pages is meant to do.

Only as a reminder, when this kind of thing gets stirred up: Sourcing is a must and verifiability (not truth) has sway over almost everything. Conflict of interest is allowed. Single purpose accounts are allowed. However, original research, soapboxing, personal attacks and edit warring are not allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Allowed perhaps, but COI and SPA are certainly frowned on. But what we are discussing goes beyond that, to wikilawyering and tendentious editing. Is that allowed too? Can wikipedians do nothing about COI accounts that hold back the the work of article improvement to make them more encyclopedic? LK (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say any economist editing such topics has a very strong COI. It's allowed, it's not frowned upon at all so long as policies are followed. On en.wikipedia, as to how far any tendentious editing and wikilawyering tends to be put up with, that has mostly to do with what PoV is being tendentiously wikilawyered. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving a sub-discussion on COI to its own topic heading so that it's easier to find later if need be.

Economists and COI

This is getting off-topic, but I feel the need to respond because this has come up before-I find the idea that economists editing economics articles have a "very strong COI" pretty bizarre. There certainly is the potential for COI when focusing on narrow things close to one's professional focus (do I reference my own articles, or the articles of close colleagues or co-authors, etc.) and there may be an extremely diffuse COI on broader topics. But an economist is someone who's well-educated in economics, conflating that with COI seems pretty self-defeating. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (aside: I don't know that this needs any further discussion, I just wanted to register an objection) CRETOG8(t/c) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is self-defeating and helpful to understand it as such. en.wikipedia would grind to a halt without COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

N.p.o.v. is a goal as an editor. To me this thread was the conflicting separation of so called mainstream with Austrian... which for my money I find very little difference between as to ideas. While discussion is great about the two... mixing that with proponents of one or another and then connecting that with personalities as to sentiment seemed like a bad idea. The idea of mainstream and using that as a defense for reverting in an edit summary is not a good idea (my opinion), and note that is being used in making reversions often to the economics related articles by editors. Maybe doing that or not doing (using mainstream as an argument instead of weight) as an editing summary rationale`, would make a good discussion. skip sievert (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Along those lines, mainstream has as much to do with reliable sources and consensus as does voting. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Stating that an economist has a COI in editing articles on the great depression is nearly totally unfathomable. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's at first unfathomable for many editors, but true enough nonetheless, since most economists belong to some "school" of economic thought, such "schools" being much at odds with each other. This can also easily crop up in historical topics, somewhat less so in the hard sciences, though. Anyone employed by the state (such as a state funded university) and editing in the topic of their profession has a strong COI. A skilled boatbuilder editing sailboat would likewise have a COI, but less so. As I said, en.wikipedia would slow to almost a halt without COI editors. The trick is, to follow policy with the understanding of one's own COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that comment belies a lack of understanding of the breadth of the economics profession. I agree that a 20th economic historian or an economist focused on central banking should be careful when editing the great depression article. But should a game theorist? An econometrician? Should a healthcare economist steer clear of editing macroeconomics? Can a labor economist edit an article on black-scholes option pricing? I also think that grouping economists into 'schools' is a fool's errand. There are clear frictions in the profession, but they certainly aren't between the Austrians and everyone else (it's not 1890 anymore). They aren't between the keynsians and the monetarists (unless you are talking about A: macroeconomists or B: economists willing to undertake left-right political commentary under the guise of their economic expertise). They might be between the behavioralists and the neoclassicalists, but that line is blurred and the battle lines are not drawn as clearly as they were 15 years ago. Also, "Anyone employed by the state (such as a state funded university) and editing in the topic of their profession has a strong COI" what does that even mean? Can a post-doc at a private university edit without fear of a COI? What does public funding have to do with the price of tea in china? Protonk (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, a post-doc at a private university cannot edit without being wary of their own COI. As for the price of tea in China, public funding will always warp it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not when it results in appropriate pricing for an Externality. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone's notion of "appropriate" pricing is only their own notion and is a warp either way. Moreover, that article is wholly uncited. Public funding can and wontedly does have everything to do with the price of tea in China. So here we are, both posting as to policy from our own COIs. What will we do? WP:V is a start. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, you seem to have grabbed on to an aside and made it a central point. Two, if you like I can point you to any reasonable undergraduate microeconomics textbook for a discussion on externalities. Three, you have failed to respond to my main point. How is every economist somehow involved in a conflict of interest with respect to any economics article? Protonk (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not failed to answer you, I've already done. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Please point me to where you argued that an econometrician can't edit Natural resource economics without fear of a COI simply by virtue of having a phd in economics (or any other pairing of subdisciplines). Protonk (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said they couldn't edit such an article, not even close. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"without fear of a COI". I'm referring to your original assertion (repeated again after I expressed disbelief) : "I'd say any economist editing such topics has a very strong COI." I know you didn't say they can't edit those articles. I didn't either. What is the 'interest' and where is the conflict? Protonk (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, whatever "school" they follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying that broad brush portraits of the economics discipline don't capture the ideas and discussions actually going on. Nor does it provide any guidance which is relevant to the structure of the discipline. What happens if an economist doesn't espouse a particular school? Do we shuffle them into one? I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but I'm really struggling with the assertions you made above. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, your interpretation of COI seems very different than mine, and I've just reviewed the guideline. First, you think COI editing is critical for the development of WWP, while the guideline says, "COI editing is strongly discouraged." Second, you seem in this discussion to be arguing that (for instance) you & Protonk both have COI's with regards to the idea of externalities and agricultural subsidies, but I suspect neither of you is, in fact, a tea grower. Your description of COI seems to be more a matter of POV. If I strongly feel that agricultural subsidies are vital, then that's a POV which is at odds with the rough consensus of the economics profession. Attempting to put the view that agricultural subsidies are vital into economics articles could violate WP:UNDUE and/or WP:NPOV but, unless I have a personal stake in those subsidies, it's not a COI. That said, if you don't think editors should be required to avoid COI, it might not matter how you identify it. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of economists, but not all, have deeply personal stakes in those subsidies, one way or another. If I've made y'all think about it, that's enough for me. COI is allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but when did this become about subsidies? Protonk (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

When you brought up the price of tea in China. :) I've said what I've had to say, WP:V has sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As a non-economist I certainly have had the impression that talk about economics very often has a political aspect, and that can be very partisan indeed. The Great Depression has strong political overtones and POV editing and pushing of aspects of it does not surprise me in the last. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that a lot of folks in the academic (And industry/analytical side) don't think much of economists who make political arguments using what is basically intro micro theory? A lot of economics looks political because the questions we try to answer go to the core of what the function of government in society is. What is the impact of local regulations? When and where should a policymaker (read: government) step in to correct a market failure? When and where should government avoid stepping in and distorting markets? Etc. It is hard to give policy advice without infecting it with your own political views, but most serious economists try not to. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The very notion of market failure is wholly a political outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How so? Protonk (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Marx, for starters. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean the funny guy w/ the mustache and the cigar? Protonk (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"The very notion of market failure is wholly a political outlook." Erm, Market failure. Rd232 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My two cents worth in a overly long quote... for which I apologize beforehand.

The Science of Economics?

A fair number of mainstream economists have argued that assumptions about the character of economic reality in the neoclassical economic paradigm are fundamentally flawed. It is also significant that those who have made the most convincing case that the mathematical theories used by neoclassical economists cannot be viewed as scientific have consistently been trained economists. For example, Alfred Eichner in Why Economics Is Not Yet a Science offers the following commentary on the discipline of economics as a social system:

The refusal to abandon the myth of the market as a self-regulating system is not the result of a conspiracy on the part of the “establishment” in economics. It is not even a choice that any individual economist is necessarily aware of making. Rather it is the way economics operates as a social system—including the way new members of the establishment are selected—retaining its place within the larger society by perpetuating a set of ideas which have been found useful by that society, however dysfunctional the same set of ideas may be from a scientific understanding of how the economic system works. In other words, economics is unwilling to adhere to the epistemological principles which distinguish scientific from other types of intellectual activity because this might jeopardize the position of economists within the larger society as the defender of the dominant faith.

This situation in which economists find themselves is therefore not unlike that of many natural scientists who, when faced with mounting evidence in support of first, the Copernican theory of the universe and then, later, the Darwinian theory of evolution, had to decide whether undermining the revelatory basis of Judeo-Christian ethics was not too great a price to pay for being able to reveal the truth. Disclosing the “revelatory basis” of neoclassical economic theory is not terribly difficult. The French moral philosophers who first posited the existence of the natural laws of economics presumed that these laws, like the laws of Newtonian physics, were created by the Judeo-Christian God - skip sievert (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Another way to put that might be, politicians find ways to pay economists for long-winded flogs which keep most folks guessing. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this going somewhere? I'm sure we're all aware of WP:NOTFORUM. Rd232 23:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics is politics. WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cucumbers are hermaphrodites. WP:CCC. C'mon. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Meanwhile consensus is not a vote, which is why I was asked to comment here to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

... Ok. Look. In defiance of NOTFORUM I'm prepared to talk about the relevance of marx to contemporary economics and to capitalism in general. But I'm not interested in doing so if all you are going to do is make bare assertions followed by policy links. Telling me that market failure is an inherently political concept and then followup up be declaring that all property is theft doesn't strike me as a very good way to move the discussion along. Protonk (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say all property is theft. You must have woefully misread something. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure then why you linked "for starters" to "theft" then. Regardless, the rest of the point stands. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's ok if you don't understand why I did that. All the more why editors should take heed that WP:V has aught to do with notions of "mainstream." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm done here. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this discussion, and I don't see that more is necessary. Not arguing some over-arching thing about the quality of economics, I just wanted to establish that WP:COI doesn't apply to economists editing economics articles, in general. I haven't convinced Gwen Gale of that, but I think if COI is raised as a serious policy point in the future, I can direct folks to this discussion. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, COI is allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

From the page on COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." An biologist who wants to edit pages on biology so that they reflect the best mainstream research available, and what is widely accepted among biology departments in Universities around the world, is advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages to make a better encyclopedia, and so has no conflict of interest. The same of economists who want to make economics articles conform to widely used, standard textbooks on the subject. However, someone who wants to edit biology pages only to promote a particular viewpoint (e.g. 'Mega doses of vitamins can rejuvenate cells'), without regard to the mainstream viewpoint, that person has a conflict of interest. It is allowed, as in 'you can't get banned for doing it', but it's still a bad thing. COI doesn't drive Misplaced Pages, it is detrimental to it. Expert knowledge and the desire to share it drives Misplaced Pages. LK (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Misplaced Pages:EXPERT#Warnings_to_expert_editors brings up their COI, as does the latest draft. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That essay mentions COI when writing about one's own research. But lets not argue about terminology. Some could read your above argument to mean that someone who comes to push a particular POV regardless of what textbooks say, is just as valued a member of the community as an expert who wants Misplaced Pages to reflect the best mainstream research available – this is something I don't think you want to argue. I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between someone who wants to help make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia by editing articles to reflect consensus in the academic community, and someone who comes to bias articles to a viewpoint that he/she knows does not reflect mainstream thinking. LK (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is neither reliable sourcing, weight nor consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

By definition from policy WP:SOURCES, the best reliable sources are mainstream academic sources. But coming back to the issue, I think we can all agree that someone who wants to have an article reflect the consensus view from reliable sources is more valued than someone who want to push a POV in defiance of what textbooks say? LK (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RS only says that sundry citations from mainstream sources are welcome. Moreover, WP:NPOV has aught to say about textbooks. WP:V notes that among the many sources taken as reliable on en.wWikipedia, university level textbooks are among them but there is nothing in policy that I've ever read which puts forth the goal of an article as bouncing back "what textbooks say." Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

From WP:SOURCES: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; ..." and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, ..." Can I get a clarification from you about whether an economist seeking to make articles reflect research from the most respected journals and university textbooks is a more valued editor than one who seeks to bias an article away from such a viewpoint? LK (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

L.K. this is your user page quote: When editing, I like improving presentation and clarity, and making sure that pages are balanced and adequately represent mainstream academic thought. I'm available to answer any questions you may have about economics. --LK - Also, the Fallacy of many questions could be pointed out as to your question above which seems like a rhetorical polemic to the discussion Can I get a clarification from you about whether an economist seeking to make articles reflect research from the most respected journals and university textbooks is a more valued editor than one who seeks to bias an article away from such a viewpoint? - The question was answered already about ten times by another editor. "Mainstream" is neither reliable sourcing, weight nor consensus. In other words, its nice to have everyone here, but we do not care if you are a janitor or the university professor... as long as the edits are following Misplaced Pages guidelines. My opinion. As noted also certain mainstream proponents have a tendency to bunch together on the Economics related articles using the excuse of mainstream presentation in edit summaries as to a reason for reverting somethings, which in my opinion is not a good idea. Take a look at this guy Alfred Eichner. Even the consensus of mainstream as to what it is changes because it is a cultural thing... and many times relies on abstract concepts. - skip sievert (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Eichner and post Keynesians in general, are serious economists who other serious economists take seriously. (yes, yes, obvious cat is obvious.) Post Keynesians might not consider themselves mainstream, but they are not fringe either. LK (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On the original point about COI, most people, and particularly most people likely to edit an economics article have a POV on economic issues. The differences between professional economists and others are that economists have a greater knowledge of the issues and, mostly, a better understanding of which viewpoints carry substantial weight and therefore need substantial attention in a Wiikipedia article. In the macroeconomics context, for example, although Keyenesians disagree with monetarists/new classical/RBC advocates (these are different labels covering a broadly agreed position) both agree that this has been the main focus of debate since the 1930s. So an article on any macroeconomic topic should give most weight on these positions, while mentioning alternative viewpoints where something has been said on the issue at hand. Examples of such alternatives are Austrian, Marxist, econophysics, institutionalist, longwave/cycle theory schools within economics and perhaps views from outside economics stressing cultural factors. The disagreement we are having largely reflects one or two non-economist editors who (i) support a POV which they think should get much more weight than would apply under this analysis (ii) are willing to engage in wikilawyering and edit warring to promote their goals.JQ (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. And the reference just given to this guy Alfred Eichner should be a good check as to that sentiment. Being skilled in the promotion or advocacy or knowledge regarding abstract concepts does not carry weight. The political price system which means economics, is a manifestation of a social control mechanism and that is all it is, or ever was and could have gone in multiple directions as to its formatting, and still can. Economics is not a science or at least not mainstream economics, though it uses science to collate data. It is more connected to a belief system value system of morality or ethics as to theory. Facts do not fight facts. Economics is based on opinion, not science. Opinions are never facts. Beliefs are never facts and always stuck with being backed up by opinions. I hope that is clear. skip sievert (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can see where we all stand, so I'm going to call a spade a spade. Most of the people here are economists who just want the articles to not be an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages when other economists read it. A few editors want to push particular non-mainstream POVs, even though its clear that policy (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:MPV) is all about making sure that the mainstream has the most weight and fringe is identified as fringe. We know where we all stand and where the general Misplaced Pages community stands on this. For those who think it's ok to push non-mainstream views, its not, STOP. Mainstream and reliable sources are synonyms, POV pushing aginst RS is breaking policy. LK (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. But I do think you lost the debate here, if that is what this was when this point was made '"Mainstream" is neither reliable sourcing, weight nor consensus end quote, G.G.

A quote I recently heard below.

``The injection of monetary concepts into all discussions of national wealth and income wholly confuses the people as to the actual issues at stake, and furthermore serve as a handy screen behind which, with a little word juggling, the business-political operators of the price system can continue their profitable activities without being too greatly embarrassed by outside interference. It is high time that the significance of national wealth and income be understood by every citizen on the North American Continent, End.

L.K., your mainstream may be someones elses comic drama. A dominating faith is only that... and you will always find non believers that are just as smart as any other human. I think there is room for everyone here... as long as they follow guidelines pretty much. skip sievert (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you so little respect for economics, you shouldn't join the Economics Wikiproject. LK (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that editors with academic credentials (I'll assume they are real) often think they don't need to follow Misplaced Pages polices on sources. My experience with them suggests that they think that because they say something is mainstream that should be taken for granted and that they are free from any NPOV conflicts. Good examples are JQ's recent edits to Economic freedom. Here he removed a claim sourced to several peer-reviewed journals, and here claim sourced to a book published by Cambridge University Press (since when is a claim about importance of strong property rights systems tendentious?). At the same time he introduced OR claim ("commonly cited"?) based on a sources like this and this. He is calling me relentless POV pusher with double standards but I would say that his understanding of Misplaced Pages policies is seriously lacking. -- Vision Thing -- 09:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

VT, Skip, just hold your own actions and edits to the standards that you set others. If you do that, I think we will all be much happier. All that the real economists here want is that the articles reflect reliable sources, ie Respected journals, and textbooks. If you can't do that, then we'll have to continue this conversation. LK (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

L.K. inciting wiki-drama is not creative with the comment you made above-^ If you so little respect for economics, you shouldn't join the Economics Wikiproject. end quote here . There really is zero excuse for that. I suggest you remove it and also this post segment here. I do respect economics especially this type Ecological economics and Biophysical economics and other aspects of Energy economics. No that does not include your brand except for a general respect according to guidelines, but telling someone they shouldn't join a project is pretty much taunting and baiting in my opinion. I have worked extensively on energy related economics articles. Those also fit into the economics category Schools of economic thought and methodology. skip sievert (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, that's like the pot calling the kettle black there innit? May I suggest you look through your edit history and meditate on all the times that you have been trashing other editors before demanding that I remove my comments. And really, if you have no respect for the core tenets of an academic disciple, instead adhering to a fringe view that has never been published in the core journals, should you really be claiming to be part of the field? LK (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• And describing heterodox schools of economics isn't bad. I don't agree w/ the premises of energy economics, but I can't deny that they represent a minority view on how to describe flows of resources. where I get off the train is when we foul up larger articles with nonsense about debt slavery and tired Marxist stalking horses or when we have to work around a misrepresentation (made from editor interpretation or primary sources of the labor theory of value vis a vis Adam Smith. Or any number of other problems, like the fact that this number is bigger than this number. Or any number of problems caused by editors foisting parochial interpretations of the discipline on the page because they aren't responsible enough to research the relation of those interpretation to the discipline. Wikiproject economics needs crusaders for marginalized views like it needs a fucking hole in the head. We have serious issues with the core articles and with uncontroversial topics and those issues aren't getting resolved because of extreme intransigence on the part of a small number of editors. Protonk (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Energy economics ideas employ rapidly advancing technologies and provide a means to achieve a transition of economies, energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards sustainable practices using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology. Modern economics has to take all that into account and does and and part of the debate. It is a function of economics along with concepts from industrial ecology . In other words the heterodox label may no longer apply. It may not have for a while. That could be the focus of some thought here I hope also. The line between mainstream and heterodox is very blurred these days in my opinion. In other words those things are not marginalized views in any way shape or form these days, and it all relates to Energy quality and energy conversion -

But, as to where I get off the train is when we foul up larger articles with nonsense about debt slavery and tired Marxist stalking horses, yeah... that is really annoying, as that is a throwback to about a hundred years ago as to relevance, but elicits emotional barrages of negative activity. skip sievert (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Absent some track record of publication in general interest economic journals of repute (e.g. JPE, QJE, AER), I'll continue to argue that those views are heterodox. Protonk (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a lot of common misunderstandings between the two types... and this very reliable source does a very good job of breaking down various issues connected and is highly suggested for a good understanding of this dynamic . skip sievert (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what outsiders may think, economist are quite open to new ideas, if they are well formed and have strong explanatory power. Witness the fast rise of game theory, behavioral economics and experimental economics. However, per WP:SOURCES and WP is not a Crystal Ball, until a theory has been covered by the major general-interest journals in the field (AER, QJE, JPE), we shouldn't be introducing it into general economics articles in Misplaced Pages, no matter our personal opinions about the truth of the issue. This is policy. LK (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't set any bounds at "major general-interest journals." Gwen Gale (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

By happenstance, in my morning read, I stumbled upon this bit in the FT today: Davis, Phil, Prime time for the "crank" alternative, Financial Times, 13 September 2009. (posted for background, see also this WP blurb on The Fatal Conceit). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RS is necessary, not sufficient. The concern here is due weight to views. We aren't here to get it Right, we are here to make the articles a good reflection of current knowledge. Protonk (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, why is this discussion so long. If we went to the biology wikiproject and had an editor who was convinced that the modern practice of biology was in error and so rather than publish in the field they would reshape wikipedia coverage so it didn't reflect the ossified conventions of the discipline, we would shut them down. Why is it different in economics? Protonk (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's because biology is at least widely taken as much more a quantitative science. Economics as a science (or study) is at most qualitative. Quantitatively, the data can't be gathered and there are no controls to be had for experimentation or verification (other than to verify that the data and controls can't be had). As a quantifiable science, economics has a long way to go. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So NPOV doesn't apply to non-qualitative sciences (or disciplines)? And despite your breezy claims, experimental work and field effects research continues unabated. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I said NPOV applies. However, going by your post, I don't think we're even talking about the same things. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When I argued above that RS is insufficient to claim centrality to a discipline and suggested that some reason must exist why we might be more tolerant of marginal views expressed as central views, you responded by stating that economics was not a science. My response was directly to that assertion. I'm growing tired of being led astray by you only to be asked (by you) why I am moving on a tangent. All LK and I are saying is that the core articles in the project should reflect academic consensus as best as we can read it and that consensus is best uncovered through review articles, textbooks, general journals and so forth. This will end up de-emphasizing views which are verifiable but marginal in favor of views that are verifiable and central. None of this results from simple elucidation of first principles. I cannot say "WP:V points me toward/away from the AER". It results from responsible research and contextualization. How does the claim made by a source fit within the discipline? Answering that question is our job and we ought to take it seriously. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics as an academic discipline

Biology is an academic discipline, as is Anthropology, and Philosophy. As academic disciplines with generally accepted tenets, it is incumbent on a Misplaced Pages community member who edits in those fields to ensure that the articles reflect what is generally accepted by the academic community in those fields. Wikiproject Economics should demand no less. To argue that since 'economics is not a science', or that 'economics is not quantitative' or that 'you cant do experiments in economics' and so mainstream academic thought is not particularly reliable, is an insidious kind of OR. Who are we to judge which academic disciplines are reliable and which are not? NPV demands that mainstream academic Economic thought deserves the same kind of respect as mainstream academic Biology. Any other viewpoint fundamentally violates the spirit of core Misplaced Pages policies. LK (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow... thats funny. Kind of. Really your argument L.K. and Protonk was blown out of the water pretty much after the thread was started by G.G. in my opinion, and this continued debate pretty much is interesting because of the stubborn dynamic attached as to acknowledging the bigger over view picture or not... More to the point, why is this discussion so long. If we went to the biology wikiproject and had an editor who was convinced that the modern practice of biology was in error and so rather than publish in the field they would reshape wikipedia coverage so it didn't reflect the ossified conventions of the discipline, we would shut them down. Why is it different in economics? What has that got to do with anything related? Energy economics is based on thermodynamics, and that is hard science. Also L.K. before another tirade of Any other viewpoint fundamentally violates the spirit of core Misplaced Pages policies. or Who are we to judge which academic disciplines are reliable and which are not?... we are not here to do that and no one is arguing that point as a rhetorical polemic... at all. We are grunt workers trying to present information as to reliable sources in a creative and maybe interesting way.

Also... Could L.K. and others read this if interested, to understand the dynamic if that is still an issue, and also realize that there is not a contest going on... but only an attempt to make for an interesting and comprehensive understanding ??.. this thrashes the dynamic around well as to an understanding of it. Note that mainstream economics practitioners have violent reactions sometimes to this information which is unfortunate, because the information is just information. skip sievert (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You know. Linking one paper from a highly cited general interest journal on the subject of energy economics would solve this little sub-debate. And that's all it is, a sub-debate. The walled garden you have created around energy economics, supported by what appear to be crackpot theorists looking for an economic theory of everything is of minimal interest to me. So please. Stop linking the eoearth or whatever.com that is. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. Like energy economics, Paul Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis borrows a great deal from physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. Comparative statics, stability analysis and inherent mechanisms for tattonement mostly came from an interpretation of contemporary physics. The importance of that text to the discipline of economics does not stem from the validity or invalidity of those influences. The importance stems from the fact that Foundations redirected neoclassical economics toward mathematics and shaped the discipline for decades (regardless of the good or ill effects of that). I may cite numerous reliable sources which speak to this, not least this contemporary review in the AER, Philip Mirowski's book on the subject, Roy Weintraub's book on the subject, this JEL article and so on. That is what makes it central to neoclassical economics. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that interesting, but obviously we are talking about two or more different things. For one Encyclopedia of Earth is well respected and peer reviewed and you may poo poo them but that is you, and you are free to do so. It is a great publication. Also calling people like M. King Hubbert a crackpot theorist..., if you are, who is connected, is really pretty empty. He is considered probably the most famous or notable earth scientist in the world. You probably do not understand the history of economics Protonk as to its origins. It was invented by the political system as was religion as we know it and contract society in the 25th. 22nd or so centuries b.c. - And, it is based on human labor and abstract concepts in regard to money such as value This is the origin of western religion Enuma elish and this mostly the origin of western economics Code of Hammurabi, and it changed a bit when it went to the Greek and Italian city states.

By using simple mathematics and statistics, with plain logic, Hubbert confirmed a critical analysis of the inherent inability of the fundamental rules-of-the-game of our present system - everything for a price - to sustain monetary purchasing power in the face of advancing technological power, that is, forcing the system to turn to massive debts and/or foreign wars. Hubbert disproved the primary premise of economists that human labor's man-hours could continue indefinitely as the source of price system purchasing power in technological North America. That is my opinion of the situation we are in... but I am not notable here, or are you, in this context as to what we think. You can read more here though as to that subject or here if the strident rhetoric above does not prevent you from looking at new information with an open mind.

Also the apparently lost point and the point where you and L.K. and a couple of others lost the original debate about the other issue is in my opinion, after G.G. appeared is this with guideline information... there is no support as to Misplaced Pages policy that articles put forth a 'mainstream' narrative or that the goal of writing articles is to make them similar or into textbooks or use those exclusive sources either. Also that, WP:FRINGE `as to policy` is often cited as a means to mistakenly or misleadingly skirt WP:V and WP:NPOV, and that is the main point here now. Finally because an individual editor is biased toward mainstream .. so called, which is really just a default template to society and can change quickly and easily, that is no reason to assume it is true, or right or weighty. skip sievert (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking one paper from a highly cited general interest journal on the subject of energy economics would solve this little sub-debate. Again. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not asserting that we shouldn't cover the subject. I said above that coverage of heterodox schools is important. Where I balked was the assertion that those schools were not heterodox or the assertion that they belonged in core economics articles. You are right that there is no requirement that views be mainstream in order for us to cover them. But I'm gonna dig my heels in and say that in order to assert that those views are mainstream or not heterodox that we need some mainstream sources. I'm sorry I reacted immodestly about energy economics but I was really getting tired of arguing that sourcing is necessary and being told how natural and logical the deductions were. I don't care how logical they are. That's not the issue at hand. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

- and and I think those are all good sources - point is this is the criteria WP:V and WP:NPOV.

No matter how many times Skip declares 'victory', WP policy is clear on this issue. Per WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Not having ever been published in any general-interest journal, Thermoeconomics is clearly a tiny minority view. Policy has always been to emphasize the mainstream; this is as true for Economics as for any other field of study. LK (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in victory, just all around presentation of the things related to the subject. Your incorrect, as G.G. pointed out a long while ago. Also for a general and broader idea of this subject look here -> Industrial ecology, and you may see that energy and economy are tangled together in economics now, and have been extensively and written about extensively.

Also What is Drama? Drama is the unnecessary creation, prolongation, and/or spreading of conflict and strife. The nature of wikis and message boards provides a natural venue for minor personal conflicts to be intentionally exaggerated and spread across multiple pages and even sites drawing in dozens of otherwise unrelated people. I hope you follow what that guideline means. You are probably interrupting Misplaced Pages now to make an obscure point. Also highlighting your conflict of interest as to your pov toward what is referred to as mainstream.

You may not like Biophysical economics. You may not understand or care to understand this subject or how it relates to other mainstream society as to the accounting of energy now in economics or how that is directly related to economics and has been written and focused on in multiple places,... but that is you, and you feel that way. But do not beat this point any more to make a point Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - skip sievert (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Two problems

It seems to me that we have two big problems here. First, there are a number of editors who want to advocate economic positions inconsistent with mainstream economics, as represented by standard textbooks, the views of most academic and business economists and so on. In fact, on a number of issues, my own views differ from those that would generally be regarded as mainstream. This should not be a problem, provided we can agree on the application of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and so on. That implies that the mainstream view should be given most attention, except in articles specifically about heterodox views, where the heterodox view should be presented along with mainstream critiques. Comments by skip sievert are based on an alternative interpretation of WP:WEIGHT it seems. Perhaps participants in the discussion might indicate general agreement or disagreement with the proposition

• WP:WEIGHT requires that articles on economic topics should have as their primary goal the exposition of mainstream views on those topics

The second, related problem is that editors with a strong POV, most notably VT, have acted in ways that have produced a lot of conflict. I suspect that, if we could resolve the WP:WEIGHT issue, this would not be such a problem.JQ (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this discussion(s) so far but I've been following it. Now that John has made a specific proposal I'm going to say that I generally agree with the proposition.radek (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree w/ that proposition, but it is a stronger one than I have been advocating. All I am saying is that core/central articles in economics should reflect those mainstream views relative to their weight on the topic. For narrow topics or heterodox schools I think the requirement that the article reflect mainstream economics is overly burdensome. All that should be required of those articles (aside from otherwise meeting our content policies) is that they not misrepresent their centrality to the discipline. So in a lump:

Core articles and topics to Economics should reflect mainstream views proportionally. Peripheral or parochial articles should not have their centrality to the discipline misrepresented.

Thats probably wordier than is strictly necessary, but it's my thought. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Even the concept of mainstream is an abstract concept which not many people have a good feel for despite what a textbook says sometimes. Therefore, hard to defend so called mainstream or heterodox, and really no need to. Balance would be a goal as to information presentation with the right amount of everything that is pertinent, and that may also be a little bit of an art to present information nicely. The field of economics is currently under a lot of contention and obviously many things that sound good on paper do not work in a real world scenario and everyone has conflicts of interests and points of view also. skip sievert (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is that mainstream/heterodox is hard to define. Ok. That's well understood. None of this is easy. As I said above it requires responsibility and context. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work at it. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with Protonk's reformulation, or with the inclusion of articles on heterodox views, provided these aren't treated as WP:FORKS where the views should be presented without criticism, or as if they were the dominant view. Again, it would be good to hear from others who agree or disagree. JQ (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk's description reads as reasonable to me. It's true it won't necessarily be easy in practice. Having said that, I'm going to push WP:NOTAFORUM:

• First, I think "mainstream" is being used two different ways in this conversation. One way is just, you know, whatever's mainstream, and we figure that out by looking at what is very common amongst professional economists, as mentioned, including textbooks and "important" economics journals. The second way is as if "mainstream economics" was itself a school of economic thought. Thinking of it this latter way makes it seem more threatening because one imagines this mainstream school of thought fighting to protect itself from ideological threats, or something. Thinking of it as the former should make it clear that mainstream economics is far from static. (Related, I think an article on mainstream economics is a bad idea.)
• Second, I think most economists realize that economics doesn't have the solidity of, say, chemistry. We generally attribute that not to economics being a pseudo-science but rather to economics being really friggin hard.
• Third, I think the openness, inclusiveness, and debate within the field is being read completely backwards by some people not in the field. Economists are constantly listening to other economists explain why they're completely wrong because they forgot factor X. There's lots of economists trying to make a career by figuring out a cool trick within the dominant paradigm, but there's also lots trying to make a career by turning the dominant paradigm on its head. Far-out ideas with either good evidence or interesting theory behind them get a hearing all the time at "mainstream" economics conferences (actually at conferences, the standards at even that high). So, when a far-out theory looks right to someone, and they see that it isn't adopted by the mainstream, they might think it's because the mainstream wasn't listening, when in fact it's just that the mainstream isn't convinced yet.
• I can sympathize with looking at things and thinking they're wrong. I keep getting closer to being convinced that expected utility theory is hooey. There's tears in it from many corners. But it's still a critical part of the edifice of economic theory, it hasn't been abandoned yet, and so everything on Misplaced Pages from Option (finance) to Bayesian game is simply rotten with the stuff-and rightly so, given the current state of things. I can live with that until the people who think hard about this stuff--economists--have decided in sufficient numbers what should replace it. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good points there Cretog. I too agree with Protonk's formulation. I think when we have a consensus version, we should formalize it on the main project page. We should emphasize per WP:NOTAFORUM, that arguments about minority views must be kept off the articles, and as much as possible keep them stable and consistent with academic consensus (as seen in major textbooks). We managed to do this with Inflation, but only after a long hard fight; we need to set up Econ Wikiproject policy in such a way as to make this process easier. LK (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh gosh this is too much. arguments about minority views must be kept off the articles... I give up. Almost. The subject is not a holy paper.

It does appear that we are in a time of economic dissolution as to the basics of how the system works and where it is going. As long as an attempt to make information known in an unbiased and creative way is done... we fulfill our role.

It is not so clear what is going on in the economy and who is influencing it and if those connected are special interest groups that support belief system groups and or a kind of dominating what could be called a priesthood almost of belief and direction as to the approach of the economy.

Quote,...The Federal Reserve's Board of Governors employs 220 PhD economists and a host of researchers and support staff, according to a Fed spokeswoman. The 12 regional banks employ scores more. (HuffPost placed calls to them but was unable to get exact numbers.) The Fed also doles out millions of dollars in contracts to economists for consulting assignments, papers, presentations, workshops, and that plum gig known as a "visiting scholarship." A Fed spokeswoman says that exact figures for the number of economists contracted with weren't available. But, she says, the Federal Reserve spent $389.2 million in 2008 on "monetary and economic policy," money spent on analysis, research, data gathering, and studies on market structure; $433 million is budgeted for 2009....

...That's a lot of money for a relatively small number of economists. According to the American Economic Association, a total of only 487 economists list "monetary policy, central banking, and the supply of money and credit," as either their primary or secondary specialty; 310 list "money and interest rates"; and 244 list "macroeconomic policy formation aspects of public finance and general policy." The National Association of Business Economists tells HuffPost that 611 of its roughly 2,400 members are part of their "Financial Roundtable," the closest way they can approximate a focus on monetary policy and central banking... end quote here --> - skip sievert (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• So? Protonk (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to that idea about conflict of interest and how that is tied into or could be thought of as being tied into mainstream as presented or opined by some, and just pointing out that mainstream is only a default template that can change, has changed, and will change for better or worse. skip sievert (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

...which is about as believable as the accusation that NSF and NIH grants so taint their respective recipients as to make the material unreportable. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Backing up somewhat to JQ's initiation of this section, I disagree, sadly, that much can be done about POV-strife in econ articles via resolving the WP:WEIGHT issue. There's enough POV-argument which is mainstream (at least in political talk about economics, if not within the academic field) that the strife will continue. Drat. Anyway, I think it's two different issues. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A general comment. Economics, like any academic discipline is a conversation, not a monolith. There are paradigms in certain areas of the discipline but those paradigms are not necessarily totalizing or exclusive. However we need to be cautious. I think we can grow tempted to participate in the conversation rather than report on it. I mean, the EMH (well the strong and semi-strong) is bullshit. But it was the governing paradigm for financial economics for ~25 years. We may be critical of it but it is impossible to report on whole sections of the economic conversation without speaking to its centrality. I don't think we can effectively champion the prevailing views in the discipline as well. For one, there is plenty of discontent within and without the profession. It will take a few years to see how the financial crisis impacted consensus views on modern macro and finance (which is not really the caricature that Krugman makes of it). But we are a backwards looking resource and we have a responsibility to present those views in context. Our theoretical micro articles should look like what is in Mas-Colell or Varian, even as it is tempered by research criticizing the consensus view. Our macro articles should discuss (preferably using review articles) the prominent theories, their application and their failings. We can't do that if we simply substitute our views and declare current macro moribund by virtue of its bizarre failing in the last 15 years. Then we have abandoned our responsibility to report on the conversation. Going back to the EMH, if we just declare it to be bullshit we lose out on the intriguing findings in the past 5-10 years about anomalies slowly being arbitraged away after they are reported (an interesting application of counter-performativity). If we fail to lend the credence to the EMH that the discipline did and then explain the threat that behavioralism presented to the EMH then that entire development becomes inexplicable to the reader.

And specific to wikipedia are the problems that LK alludes to w/ Inflation where heterodox/marginal 'criticism of' sections are piled on top of each other and walled off from normal prose until the article is a mix of he-said she-said claims between sources which aren't actually engaged in a conversation. We have falsified it. There is no conversation between the folks who are convinced that inflation is a secret tax on the poor undertaken by a malevolent central bank and the folks who are trying to determine how best to computer CPI. It only looks as though there is a conversation because we have interspersed their claims in the article.

I may have more but I'll try and limit them and respect JQ's request that other folks drop by to the conversation. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cretog elsewhere, made a suggestion of incorporating ideas about what is currently going on as to the dissolution, collapse, redirection,... what ever it is, as to incorporating mention or exposition into an existing article and I have suggested maybe a new article would be in order to get this idea across in encyclopedic ways or terms. Any ideas for a name of an article like that?? or is anything like that already existing,? and if not how about something like that to start now, and use all the disparate talents mainstream and other that could focus on that? Title ideas? Global economic collapse - Economic collapses in history - Contemporary economic collapses... it seems like what has happened deserves a separate article, though maybe there is one and I don't know about it. Ideas? It may be a good trial kind of article to incorporate things we have learned from this series of threads of discussion on weight, conflicts of interest, sourcing, n.p.o.v. etc. to make for a positive outcome of the recent discussion. Would anyone care to start such an article and post the link to it here, in the discussion page..?. if this seems like a good idea. skip sievert (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

equity (economics)

In my class on the Federal income tax, we're discussing vertical vs. horizontal equity today. I'll be adding content to equity (economics) as we learn more, but I'd appreciate help!  :) thanks Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Malefactors of Megawealth David M. Kennedy
2. Krugman, Paul (2001-10-07). "Fuzzy Math Returns". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-01.
3. Krugman, Paul (2001-10-07). "Fuzzy Math Returns". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-01.
4. Krugman, Paul (2003-02-07). "Is the Maestro A Hack? - The New York Times". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.