Economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tleung13, Antnagikian.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO
Please read the rest of the talk page.
I'd be happy to slim down the content somewhat, but as of now that would give undue weight towards recent events if I do that as of now. Which part do you mean have a "weakly sourced emphasis", the entire article right now has a huge emphasis towards a just one branch of economic theory, and the version you tried to take back is historically questionable.
I, however, appreciate that you want to make this article better.
Thanks for any answer.
Pauloroboto (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- When an edit is reverted, the onus to gain consensus for re-inclusion is on the editor who proposed the content, in this case you. I am going to undo your reinsertion and you need to state your case convincingly on this talk page to generate support from other editors. So far, you have none and the content should remain out of the article. Your emphasis on non-mainstream views and emphasis is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to present mainstream views on the subject topic only and only in proportion to their incidence in mainstream reliable sources. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Marx is both fringe in contemporary econ and as the historical development of the field goes not terribly important. That his works are relatively well-popularised (in comparison to others in the field) doesn't change any of that (any more than the proliferation of flat-earth conspiracy theories makes them less fringe in astronomy).
Marx's contributions were to political philosophy/historiography first and economics a distant second, which is why his influence is still felt today in the first two areas. The article on Economics should reflect that.
With all that in mind, I agree with SPECIFICO that there was far too much attention being dedicated to him in the deleted content. VineFynn (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Proposed added definition of 'economics' in the 1st sentence
The following words are appropriate for this section: "Modern economists do not subscribe to a homogeneous definition of their subject" and, given the wide range of subjects & methods used, "any concise definition of economics is likely to be inadequate."•
• Roger E. Backhouse & Steven Medema. (Winter 2009). "Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 23 (1): Abstract. doi:10.1257/jep.23.1.221.
I propose adding another definition to the 1st sentence of Economics (with the earlier new, part italicized):
Economics … is "the study of how societies use scarce resources in the production of valuable commodities for distribution among different people.[fn. 4] A complementary definition of economics is "the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services."[fn. 5]
[fn. 4: Samuelson, Paul A., and Nordhaus, William D. (2001), 17th ed. Economics, p. 4.]
[fn. 5: Krugman, Paul; Wells, Robin (2012). Economics (3rd ed.). p. 2.]
(1) The 2nd definition is fine. Still, it may be questionable for those who have taken Principles of Economics. They might say, "Why is there mention of consumption but no mention of investment spending & government spending. The 1st definition avoids this problem.
(2) The 1st def. uses the term "scarce resources". There is no mention of it in the 2nd def., but 3 pp. later in that same textbook is a 6-para. section titled "Resources Are Scarce" under the larger heading of "Individual Choice: The Core of Economics." So, "scarce resources" in the 1st definition is important. Those subscribing to heterodox economics might agree about including the 1st definition to represent (mainstream) economics more faithfully.
(3) The 1st def. includes “distribution among different people", suggesting that different people (not just a particular class, ethnicity, and so on) are important.
So, the 2 definitions are complementary, not competitive.
Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The lead is not the place for a pick-and-choose definition. The current text represents a widely accepted and uncontroversial definition. talk 19:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for same reason. The proposed is fine but is excessive for the lead, which is required to be no more than terse summary of the body content, per WP:LEAD. Can you find a suitable home for it in the body? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, SPECIFICO & JMK. The 1st def. is more representative of how econ. textbooks define the subject, & better in that sense. Still, the 2nd def. is brilliantly reductive and worthy of the top spot. Samuelson's textbook (now in it's 20th ed.) was a template for later textbooks, as Krugman noted about his own textbook. And I'll follow your suggestion, JM. — Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Import/Export
What happens when we buy goods from other countries 41.114.137.46 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article International trade may help. If you still have questions, talk:International trade is probably a better place to ask than here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Reaching a consensus on how to implement the edit published: 09:33, 2 May 2022
Hi. I would like to discuss how to implement this edit. Please state any thoughts. Have a good day. Pauloroboto (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economics&oldid=1085768141 Pauloroboto (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman Pauloroboto (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- First, it is most unlikely to achieve consensus as it stands and thus won't be implemented. So to move forward, you need to look for other ways to achieve the same result.
- The criticism of classical economics is certainly a significant minority view but nonetheless not one that has extensive acceptance. We should certainly have a section on these criticisms but its size must be proportionate to its acceptance – in Wikipedia terms, WP:DUE. Such a section might have a {{main}} link to a more detailed subsidiary article and maybe that would the place for a longer text, such as you have written. (But not Critique of political economy, which is much too specific for this purpose.)
- @SPECIFICO: any further advice? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The overriding problem with this editor's behavior is his refusal to differentiate 19th Century classical economic from Economics as a whole or as it currently stands. He keeps reverting, for example, identifying Marxian critiques from the mainstream. And, of course, the POV edit warring needs to stop if he wishes to continue here. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @SPECIFICO!
- I did not have time to respond to this the last time I was on here since I from time to time engage in activities away from keybord, however:
- That's a interesting but wide argument you're putting forward regarding your assessment of my knowledge of history, however I think it doesn't hold for a range of reasons specified below.
- We both know that "19th Century classical economic" is not equivalent to Economics as a whole.
- We both also know that "19th Century classical economic" is not equivalent to "Economics [...] as it currently stands".
- But it remains true that what you refer to as "19th Century classical economic" is a school of thought, discipline, or equivalent, which is within the subject of economics.
- However, what you put claim does not really work out all that great for the following reasons:
- I have no issue at all in differentiating between economists different schools of thought, as you claim. I can go on and on about heterodox and orthodox views for hours if really needed... (I fully recognize that certain authors here critique different fields, however, where the problem seems to emerge is that you don't seem to be able to conceptualise how one could critique an entire field of study. Or am I wrong? You might simply feel that one should not be permitted to, or do it quietly?)
- If I would strengthen your argument, and make it a bit clearer by rephrasing it, you could claim that "one should not critique more than one school of thought at the time" (for whatever reason). (Feel free to question how I have interpreted your argument here by putting forward your own clarified version of it.)
- However, there are authors who have made arguments and claims that generalise over different fields of economic theory, addressing the whole field. See e.g Kropotkin, Strindberg.
- Hence: you may not like it, but that is what the sources say. And as far as I have understood it, correct me if I am wrong, Wikipedia tries to be objective, and relies on what the sources say.
- If this is not enough to convince you, there is also specific criticisms that go beyond a certain field. Such as the critique of unduly unrealistic axioms, etc.
- (It also would be great if you could rephrase what you mean by "identifying Marxian critiques from the mainstream", since I can not address it since the sentence does not make any sense to me.)
- Is any of the following interpretations correct or even close to what you are trying to communicate here?
- You simply feel that I identify what you perceive to be "marxian"?
- You feel that I identify thoughts which you perceive to be "marxian"?(Even from authors who are de facto in entirely different schools of thought?)
- You have a unusually wide definition of the concept of something being "marxian", that you feel that all heterodox thought in economics is "marxian?".
- You have a unusually wide definition of the concept of something being "marxian", that you feel that everything that goes against assumptions in econ101 is "marxian?".
- You feel that the mainstream is marxian, and that I have picked out critiques from within mainstream economic thought, which therefore is unacceptable to you?
- (Since you have been going on about how everything is marxist or marxian for as long as I can remember editing anything with you, I am generally curious about if you feel that there is anything that is in fact not marxist?)
- Regarding your accusation of edit warring. I obey the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule, and I am trying to expand the current knowledge which is available for people on Wikipedia. I just think it would be nice to have an article on this subject which you would not feel ashamed of telling someone to read. I try to do my best to obey all rules, which you (@SPECIFICO), are keen to remind me of more or less every time I do a edit. If you are going to accuse me of edit warring, then I find that a tad ironic considering that you seldom contribute to the edits or articles you revert, but other editors seem to engage with much more pragmatically.
- I think it is important that you and me find a functioning way to work on improving articles, since you seem to be very interested in pages I edit.
- I would like to suggest that we could get into a more problem solving mode of discussion and focus less on this kind of meta questions, I think we would come further, quicker.
- See e.g Help:Edit conflict#Resolving an edit conflict.
- After all, if we as editors think that something works, we have the:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I'm not saying that we should ignore rules just because, but maybe try to focus on what is reasonable in the first case, and in the case that this doesn't work, get involved with the hermeneutics of wikipedia rules.
- It would hence be great if you could state exactly what you feel is not worthy for publication, so that we both have a chance of addressing the issue at hand.
- Thanks for your collaboration. Pauloroboto (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @John Maynard Friedman!
- Thanks for your reply! As you may have noticed from the text, the criticism goes beyond classical political economy, and incorporates other fields, as well as general criticisms against the field itself. But I do agree that criticism of classical political economy is a view significant enough to get its own brief coverage. I also think the criticisms section as it looks now most likely could be improved. Would you like to state why you feel that the page on critique of political economy is too specific? Which other page do you feel would be more fitting? Pauloroboto (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- The C of P E article is too closely tied to the Marxist/Marxian analysis and that would make the necessary summary of it in this article even more WP:UNDUE, because pure Marxism is no longer taken very seriously.
- NB that my knowledge of economics as a discipline is very superficial, so I am not best placed to advise. SPECIFICO may be able to give more practical advice. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it should not be expanded here, and it should not be expanded in any of the POV Fork articles that OP has been editing. Based on OP's responses to numerous talk page discussions, I view it as a WP:NOTHERE account, so that damage control is the primary issue for other editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Paulo, if you don't understand that opinion, see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for trying to help the conversation along @John Maynard Friedman. Pauloroboto (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts @SPECIFICO. However I would like to state that if that would be the case, does it not it seem rather odd that (I at least perceive) that I have fruitful exchanges with all other users I encounter here around 99% of the time, which are constructive, does not end up with the other party claiming that I would have some malicious intent, etc. I don't know if you would share this perspective, but I also view about 5% of our exchanges here as actually constructive. You might understand that I consider what you view as "damage control" here, to be POV since you stop the article from reaching a stage where it presents differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. As the article stands it is also inadequate since it presents one of the worst cases of Recentism I have seen. Pauloroboto (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Paulo, if you don't understand that opinion, see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi John Maynard Friedman! Thank you very much for your contribution to resolving this issue.
- I think the article on Critique of political economy definitely could suffice, but I really see your viewpoint here. The fact is that objections to economics from a reactionary standpoint is sadly a bit less covered in the article right now. However the part about marxian critique of political economy is not the whole article, and one would link to the page itself, rather than the section on that. Since you have not stated any other candidate I can only assume that you have not been able to think of one. Which is fine, I can't think of one that suffices better either, even if it is problematic for the reason you have stated. However, that could be rectified when wikipedia grows over time. I would rather have unfinished knowledge than no knowledge at all. (It is also worth to note that nothing says that we could not include more than one page under the template "see also".)
- I also think that you should not devalue your thinking skills categorically like this.
- However, why hear me out on the topic when you could listen to someone with greater cognitive ability than us right here, such as Albert Einstein when he clearly stated that "we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."[1]
- Sapere aude, John Maynard Friedman! Pauloroboto (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it should not be expanded here, and it should not be expanded in any of the POV Fork articles that OP has been editing. Based on OP's responses to numerous talk page discussions, I view it as a WP:NOTHERE account, so that damage control is the primary issue for other editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- The overriding problem with this editor's behavior is his refusal to differentiate 19th Century classical economic from Economics as a whole or as it currently stands. He keeps reverting, for example, identifying Marxian critiques from the mainstream. And, of course, the POV edit warring needs to stop if he wishes to continue here. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)