Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Werdnabot

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 "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 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 Wikipedia: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 ^talk 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".[1] 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.[2] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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. Wikipedia 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 $n$ 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 [3]. 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 Wikipedia community.

In interest of full disclosure, I should also reveal that Vision Thing has previously reported me for violating 3RR, as reported here [4]. 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 [5]. 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 [6] 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 Wikipedia: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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 [7]. 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks with that comment Wikidea. That is over the top making a personal attack Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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.[8] 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.Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 [9] - 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, it is detrimental to it. Expert knowledge and the desire to share it drives Wikipedia. LK (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [10]. 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 [11] and [12] and part of the debate. It is a function of economics along with concepts from industrial ecology [13]. 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 - [14]

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 [15]. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ??.. [16] 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 [17] or here [18] 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 Wikipedia 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)

- [19] and [20] and [21] 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 Wikipedia 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 [22] or how it relates to other mainstream society [23] as to the accounting of energy now in economics [24] or how that is directly related to economics and has been written and focused on [25] in multiple places,... but that is you, and you feel that way. But do not beat this point any more to make a point Wikipedia: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 [26] 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 Wikipedia 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 [and] 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 --> [27] - 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)

I'ld like to bring this discussion back to the policy we should include on the main WP:ECON page. Modifying Protonk's wording, I'ld like to suggest the following: --LK (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Core Economics articles and topics should reflect mainstream views proportionally, as found in textbooks and major academic journals and as commonly voiced by the academic community. Following Wikipedia policy, peripheral or parochial theories and viewpoints should not have their centrality to the discipline misrepresented.

That just affirms the policy already 'there', (proportionally) on undue weight. 'Commonly voiced by the academic community'? Hard to quantify that phrase. That could mean using a so called expert that has a conflict of interest or is biased as to their opinion. Which academic community??, they vary and opinions on economics vary greatly. 'Peripheral or parochial theories and viewpoints should not have their centrality to the discipline misrepresented'? That works the other way also. Mainstream economists often ignore or are not interested in issues that others think are very directly related, and that could be a significant bias [28], as has been pointed out previously. If a number of editors with conflicted or conflated interests pile into some subjects in accord with some abstract concept as to it being normal or mainstream there is a danger that it is presented then as the truth. Economics is a man made construct that bears no reality beyond a kind of poetic and practical way to control society (my opinon). Generally things are too situational to have any thing other than a general Duck test and the general following of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading the conversation here as JQ, radek, Protonk, Cretog and myself in favor of policy wording like this. And Skip having no substantial objections as it "just affirms the policy already 'there'". Therefore, I will be adding this statement to the main page. Anyone want to edit it before I do so? LK (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to be contentious L.K.? Are you trying to twist what I said? I am trying to edit in good faith and positively. Are you suggesting that you should add Core Economics articles and topics should reflect mainstream views proportionally, as found in textbooks and major academic journals and as commonly voiced by the academic community. Following Wikipedia policy, peripheral or parochial theories and viewpoints should not have their centrality to the discipline misrepresented.... because if you are you are missing the point as to my comment. I do object because what you are suggesting is completely ignoring (as to the previous discussions by Glen Gail... the conversation and the results of what the guidelines are actually trying to do which is make sure that mainstream what ever that is is not used as an excuse or alibi for conflicts of interests regarding how articles are written. L.K. you do not seem to want to give up your argument from a previous thread above and in this thread you have also said arguments about minority views must be kept off the articles end quote L.K. - So, I will go back to this statement ''mainstream has as much to do with reliable sources and consensus as does voting. end quote Glen Gale. and, I think you may have over extrapolated your interpretation of the guideline as to meaning. - skip sievert (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is that loudest editors in this project are Keynesians who are so convinced that their POV is mainstream that they trample all over other POVs including that of the freshwater school. Even Krugman [29] acknowledges that currently there is a strong division between them but from reading Wikipedia articles like 2008–2009_Keynesian_resurgence you would hardly know that (for example in the article I can't find any mention of the views of freshwater economists). On similar note, I would like to know opinion of other members of this project on John Cochrane's response to Krugman's article [30] and Krugman's subsequent comment [31]. -- Vision Thing -- 22:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As there are no reasonable objections, and as the consensus of editors on this wikiproject supports it, I will be going ahead with the clarification on the main page. LK (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are reasonable objections. Please don't. skip sievert (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Kindly list reasonable objections (not of the type, I don't like it) concisely below. I cannot discern any logical arguments against this proposed restatement of policy from the comments so far. Also, if you have a suggestion of how to amend the policy statement, please state you suggestion. LK (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

LK, I have a moderate problem with your statement, which I'm having trouble phrasing. Essentially, there are topics which are really primarily in the domain of economics, the discipline. And then there are topics which are in the domain of economics, the discipline, but also economics, the broad social/political concern. For instance, there is the economics take on free trade, but I don't think it would be right to limit that article to expressing views proportional to their appearance in economics (the discipline) books and articles. There's a lot of politics and social commentary and stuff which is meaningfully applied to free trade. Trying to rephrase myself: when economics topics are also topics of wider concern and discussion (as they often are), those wider concerns and discussions are also relevant for determining proper weight in the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see where you coming from, and I'm open to rewording the statement. On the other hand, it does say "Core economics articles and topics", and I think we can all agree that articles like Inflation, unemployment, and price should have the standard textbook treatment emphasized. That is to say, price should emphasize supply and demand and standard microeconomic theory of price determination, rather than for instance, the Marxian labour theory of value. (BTW, I note that about a third of the article on price is devoted to 'Austrian price theory'.) Anyway, I'm open to any wording that makes it clear that the weight given to different economic theories should be similar to what is found in good textbooks. LK (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

and I think we can all agree that articles like Inflation, unemployment, and price should have the standard textbook treatment emphasized. No. We do not all agree. If you 'believe the premise the rest is easy' does not qualify as to core. Core is based on abstract concept. Economics is not a science. As a social control mechanism that we can assume is benign, it evolves. It is based on assumptions about culture. Textbooks though well intentioned document an abstracted interpretation of something that is not an anthropological truth, but something that was invented, and is evolving.

The Keynes people or advocates may be in for troubled waters as so called mainstream could very quickly become the focus of societal scape goating and anger. No. We are not all Keynesians. Reliable sources as mentioned a long while ago, are not limited to textbooks and editors that identify themselves as experts could take particular care as to not endorsing material they are connected with and making a special effort to be n.p.o.v. and open to sourcing information is suggested as long as the sources can be verified and are pertinent. skip sievert (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your previous comments have already made clear your position that articles should not reflect theories as found in standard textbooks. What you have not articulated is a reasonable argument for this position. LK (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They should and do reflect theories found in standard textbooks. It is not really my position. Articles could reflect any viable connector that gives broader and informative information. Limiting to a pov would not contribute to a broader understanding usually. Since economics is not a written in stone concept and does change as to subtle aspects and blatant aspects... then which textbooks become an issue. The textbooks vary. Also mainstream has as much to do with reliable sources and consensus as does voting. skip sievert (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify, with the weight and balance found in standard text books. If you agree with that, then we have no arguments. LK (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt it. Standard textbooks may be limited or out of date. Your idea of standard and someone others may be very different. Also standard changes. Standards change. Things like this have a large impact energy and economic myths. It would be unfortunate to limit information or not use neutral pov as to mainstream as contrasted with other presentation that is equally pertinent or emerging as a field or discipline. skip sievert (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy statement

I want to keep on pursuing this, as I think it will help. Otherwise the situation will be like a ticking timebomb, just waiting for yet another POV pusher to get us into a drama inducing edit war. My takeaway from the above discussion is that a) we don't want to exclude viewpoints that are notable but not expressed in the academic discipline, b) it's hard to know what is in the mainstream, and the mainstream evolves. In response to b), this is true of most academic disciplines, but this does not allow one to underweight what is currently in the academic literature, or overemphasize what is not. I propose the following rewording of the policy statement in response to a). --LK (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Core Economics articles should present economic theories proportional to their weight in standard textbooks, academic handbooks, and major academic journals. Notable alternative viewpoints should be included with proper weight. Following Wikipedia policy, peripheral or parochial theories should not have their centrality to the discipline misrepresented.

I don't understand what is gained with inclusion of this text. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that all editors need to follow. It is not a task of Wikiprojects to invent their own policies, or to say that in specific articles only a certain part of the policy is relevant and will be applied. -- Vision Thing -- 08:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do Wikiprojects exist? We can all edit independently following general policy. This project exists to bring like minded people together, provide a forum for discussion, and provide a statement for what we wish to do. This statement clarifies and reminds us what we hope to do and what we should be doing. LK (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikiprojects is to encourage collaboration between editors on certain articles. That collaboration should be guided by general Wikipedia polices, not specific Wikiproject polices. -- Vision Thing -- 12:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not true. A number of successful wikiprojects actually write guidelines regarding articles under their scope (MILHIST, VG, among others). I'm not saying that once we write this we will suddenly be able to expunge crap where before we couldn't. I'm saying that if you, me, LK, JQ, and enough other econ project members support this, we can at least point to it in discussions. The more we operate by it the better off we will be. Protonk (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing to a statement on a Wikiproject page can have more weight in discussion than pointing to a core Wikipedia policy like NPOV. Also, Wikipedia already has more than enough rules, and instruction creep can only be detrimental to goal of attracting new editors. In my opinion, main problem of the core economics articles is not too much "crap" content, but too little good content. -- Vision Thing -- 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the second part. But I for one think that narrow local guidance is helpful (MEDRS, VGSCOPE, etc.). If you like we can cast it as a goal of the project, rather than treat it immediately as a proclamation. I'm happy with that. LK would have to agree though, I don't really have the ability to give the store away for him. Protonk (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I don't wish to be dogmatic, whatever you think is best is fine with me. LK (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not want to encourage collusion, I won't say meat puppetry, among the believers or subscribers to the so called mainstream, all of which are lingering here and piling into the debate, in what I believe is a negative way. I want to keep on pursuing this, as I think it will help. Otherwise the situation will be like a ticking timebomb, just waiting for yet another POV pusher to get us into a drama inducing edit war. end quote L.K. - Are you aware L.K. that you could be considered another pov pusher by others also, with the dogged wanting to change basic policy or make it easier for you to revert things that disagree with your opinion which you claim an expertise in?, and that you made parts of this page into an attack blog against Visionthing earlier, and that by that statement, you are ax grinding a point that died when Gwen Gail appeared with better information and sound judgment, as to the issue in question??, someone outside of the tiny limited group of mainstream proponents breathed some fresh air into the discussion and highlighted the guidelines, which are mostly clever and creatively done?

I think at this point that is not a good idea as previously suggested by giving this link to this whole line of what originally was a very biased and divisive attack on a user in my opinion and suggest this to L.K. in a positive way Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. In my opinion any mainstream proponent of what is referred to mainstream who is pushing to change the way basic n.p.o.v. is viewed is trying to now crusade for the mainstream, which I am beginning to find repugnant as to repetitive and circular in argument as to suggesting and presenting or trying to present by design... a more narrow point of view as to exclusion of information rather than expansion of information. Caution experts again... conflicts of interest may be at issue Mainstream economists often are funded by groups and associations and expert editors may be held to a higher accountability than others as to scrutiny. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Really what are you on about? You're right. You got me. The Cowles commission sent me here to whitewash their plan to organize humanity through non-parametric estimation of quartile regression of panel data. The gig is up. Now I need to return the copious funding business interests around the world gave me. Their plot to influence wikipedia has been dashed. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have had enough discussion, it's clear that the economists here want something like it, and there are no reasonable objections to this restatement of policy, so I will be introducing this into the goals section of the main page.

• • Core Economics articles should present economic theories proportional to their weight in standard textbooks, academic handbooks, and major academic journals. Notable alternative viewpoints should be included with proper weight. Following Wikipedia policy, peripheral or parochial theories should not have their centrality to the discipline misrepresented.

To try to stave off an edit war, I ask one final time for any reasonable objections. Please, no conspiracy theories, 'I don't like it' augments, mainstream science is 'just one more viewpoint', or 'it won't do anything' arguments. Keep in mind also, that you are free to edit the main page after, but I would appreciate it if we do not have a revert war. LK (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks fine to me.JQ (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole line of reasoning you were using is mostly nonsense or gibberish. You have taken an ax grinding mono view point and made circular arguments that mostly don't make sense. Abstract concepts can not be elevated into truth... no matter how that is desired. Your view of economics is mostly only tragically narrow as to point of view and really is an indictment of mainstream as much as anything. Very sad trying to argument against something that does not make sense. Comical I suppose also. Read this [32] Really you don't seem interested in creative presentation or creative thinking to the subject and as a Civil POV pushing person Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in this regard of so called mainstream... it is sad. So much for expert editors .. so called being neutral point of view. Yuck. skip sievert (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the commotion is about, LK's statement is essentially a summary of WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. Skip, how can you say it's "Against normal guidelines"? CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:53, 24 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 ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Economic collapse re-thinking analysis

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)

There's a bunch of articles on the current crisis, see the "part of a series" box CRETOG8(t/c) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also at least one article on the influence of the crisis on economic thought: 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence. I have to say, I'm still not completely comfortable with that article, and I'm likely to feel the same way about an entire article focusing on what I was thinking about. What I was thinking about was incorporating into History of economic thought the current wide-ranging discussion on economic thought as seen through the crisis. As I mentioned, many people are using the crisis to say, "look, see! we were right for X years and you ignored us!" and some of them may be right, but a lot of it is just taking advantage of a crisis to hit favorite themes. But some of those themes are getting more attention from more places than they would have pre-crisis. Others are seriously reconsidering various aspects of how economic analysis and policy are handled. I'm not sure it's ready for an article or section of an article, it may all be too new, and conclusions are scarce, but there's a lot of material available out there about re-considering economics.

Hm, sorry, what I wrote is hard to follow. Anyway, I was thinking of covering less, "here's the crisis and analysis of the crisis", and more, "here's how the crisis prompted a (current, ongoing) period of intellectual tumult". CRETOG8(t/c) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is to be such an article, I propose, "Great head-scratching of the aughts". CRETOG8(t/c) 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok... after a little digging... these are good articles and could use help also in areas... as all do,-> Financial crisis of 2007–2009 and Late-2000s recession. Here is another but may be more problematic Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 - skip sievert (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who is doing a fair bit of "look, see! we were right all along" stuff on blogs and elsewhere, let me say that this is precisely the sort of thing that should be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, but not endorsed in the encyclopedic voice, until the majority of the profession is convinced and a coherent new view (or range of views) emerges. I think the relevant reference is WP:Not a crystal ball.JQ (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List of recessions in the United States at FLC

Comments are appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

inside baseball

This came up a bit during the discussion of importance of Austrian school articles, and there were some opinions that importance ratings don't even matter, but anyway... I think this project has a bit of a bias towards covering meta topics--and that to some degree ties into meta topics being where conflict occurs. So, history of economic thought gets a lot of action, while demand is a Low-priority stub article. I was just reminded of this seeing neoclassical economics get re-prioritized to Top priority.

It's probably time to do a top-to-bottom re-prioritization for the project, anyway, but I'm not able to pick that up myself yet. I just wanted to put in a plug for essential economic content having greater priority than background for intra-field debates. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect (this may be my inner lazy person speaking) that project assigned importance ratings have little to do with actual coverage of topics. However I would support an attempt to reclassify topics appropriately. Hopefully that can be done w/o too much politics. Protonk (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Demand and Supply should be 'Top' priority. I'm going to change them. Unfortunately however, it's going to be the articles that people fight over that get all the attention. Human nature being what it is, I can't sit by and see Paul Krugman trashed, no matter how much more important an article like Budget constraint is. LK (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there is no Supply (economics). On the bright side, I see that Supply and Demand is looking good. LK (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder L.K. that as a expert, self defined or other and a person with an obvious conflict of interest as to endorsing neo-classical or what ever you want to call it as an approach you may be under a lot of scrutiny if you proceed to value judgment articles as to importance. Suggestion... don't do it as you seem to have introduced a lot of rancor into discussion concerning that topic of importance... weight, conflict of interest, and neutral point of view. That is my opinion. Also topic experts or people that consider themselves such should perhaps make special effort not to judge or make value judgments when they are stake holders in a pov [33] - skip sievert (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, jumping into a different thread with warning based upon a previous thread introduces rancor and pushes WP:AGF to the limit. I also should note that you took some things out of the previous discussion very different than some others (such as myself) did, so your warnings are assuming an understanding about COI and such, when such an understanding does not exist. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Glen Gail made the most weighty and significant comments as to the repetitive issue brought up previously. There is an understanding in the guidelines that does a pretty good job of describing itself presently. As to introducing rancor I do believe L.K. has done that and did do that with the initial attempt to discredit and malign another editor that in my opinion generally is a good editor. Since that time as I predicted there has been a smack down between Austrians and Keynes people. I am neither. On the plus side a lot of interesting things have come out on the discussion page as to pov's and that is good, as more people may be aware of how easy conflict of interest can be extrapolated into editing and how subtle a thing that is. skip sievert (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This topic might be done, but I'm out-denting to get away from the above tangent and back to the initial topic. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deflation

Could someone take a look at the wording of the section 'causes of deflation' in Deflation and try to improve it? (It's been tagged since 2006!) Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

disambig aggregate demand

I'd been going on the idea that aggregate demand was generally understood to be the macro AD. But I've just been reminded that it's used by such standard sources as Varian's textbook to mean market demand, aggregated over individuals. I think this calls for disambiguation, and am looking for suggestions on phrasing. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Competitive equilibrium

The article Competitive equilibrium gives a really quick overview of general equilibrium theory. I think the term "competitive equilibrium" is more generally applied to partial equilibrium, though.

I'm thinking the best thing to do is to redirect competitive equilibrium to supply and demand. Thoughts? (While I haven't proposed it yet, I think that partial equilibrium and supply and demand should merge also) CRETOG8(t/c) 05:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, Competitive equilibrium should focus on what distinguishes the competitive case, most obviously the requirement that all participants are price-takers. I'd favor merging most of the existing content into other articles and writing something about the competitive case.JQ (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of editing guidelines to the Econ wikiproject page

I would like to invite the general Wikipedia community (both WP:ECON members and non-members, but obviously not me, and not Skip), to comment on my recent addition of guidelines about mainstream and fringe minority theories to the WikiProject Economics page,[34] and Skipsievert's quick removal of it.[35] These guidelines were inserted after lengthy discussion of this issue on this talk page. My question for the community is, are these guidelines a reasonable restatement of Wikipedia policy as applied to Economics, or are they "Pretty much over the top endorsement of a pov. Against normal guidelines." --LK (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy wise, problem with that statement is that eliminates many sources that are considered the most reliable. WP:SOURCES says: "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." While it might be advisable not to focus on "magazines [...] newspapers" as sources for the purely economics subjects, I strongly oppose to changing "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks" part. Similarly, rather than introducing novel wording "peripheral or parochial theories" I think it is preferable to use established wording from WP:GEVAL, "minority views such as pseudoscience". -- Vision Thing -- 09:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC comment your wording is open, wide open, to abuse and use of impact factors to marginalise legitimate academic heterodoxy and political economy. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for the idea of trying to define or restate Wikipedia policies here to represent our particular WikiProject POV. If we're trying to make a point, we should reference the guidelines or policy as a whole, not restate a sound bite that is subject to change. WP:FRINGE is a guideline and too often used in Wikipedia as a dismissive way around NPOV policy, so I'm extra cautious when we're looking at making it more prominent in the project. I have to say that I haven't read the prior talk - I'll try to do so. Maybe it will change my mind, but as of now, I would not support restating bits and pieces of guidelines on our project to press a certain point. Morphh ^(talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you phrased the Rfc. a certain way as to pov. and to my knowledge there is no reason I can not or should not comment also as you have done by your phrasing L.K., I will.- "We are dying of consumption," says Peter Dauvergne, sustainability advisor at UBC and author of The Shadows of Consumption. "The unequal globalisation of the costs of consumption is putting ecosystems and billions of people at risk." - Most people could associate mainstream as the driving force behind destroying the environment, for money and profit.

In other words. Lets not limit articles to certain view points. Economics is pretty much voodoo. Almost occult as to being a belief system. There is no science behind it except to collate data in a social control mechanism and we have a default template which some refer to as mainstream currently. And that is fine. However, it is based on opinion and belief, not science or literal observation which is referred to as the scientific method. And, while we must assume good faith and civility and that the 'system' is trying its best and is benign in intent or does not understand sometimes what is going on because of its strong beliefs that have no corollary in reality... that is no reason to limit articles or constrain ideas or make a tacit approval of any information. That destroys neutrality, and turns an abstract concept into truth giving. Sorry about the length of this. skip sievert (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is really no good reason to debate whether a WikiProject page has stated a policy or guideline properly, as that page doesn't need to state policy or guidelines at all. It is fine to have a Project page link to policies as policies and to guidelines as guidelines (taking some care to to misrepresent the latter as the former). Restatement of policy or of guidelines is highly problematic because of inadvertant or deliberate transmission errors; Extension of policy is out of the question; desire for policy change should be raised in a more general forum. Formation of a WikiProject isn't supposed to provide a means of superseding or otherwise subverting existing Wikipedia policy. —SlamDiego_←T 16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Good points have been made by Morphh and Fifelfoo and VT. There is some concern to be had about excluding of marginal/heterodox views. I don't want to be Notre Dame here. But we have to acknowledge that economics articles on wikipedia have two POV problems. The first is that major articles (inflation, FRB, debt, gold standard, etc.) overstate marginal views which happen to be held in a higher proportion than average by males aged 18-30 (e.g. Marxism, Austrian/libertarian). Part of this has to do with the availability and accessibility of sourcing, but the problem remains. The second problem is that minority views are being expressed as though they are the consensus or even a major view inside the discipline. I fully admit that the first problem is bigger than the second. But both are problems. We can talk about groupthink and suppression all we like but the status quo is that wikipedia currently privileges certain views more so than they are outside wikipedia and that's got to change.
• Specifically to Fifelfoo's comment, I would say that we can agree on a set of core journals in the discipline without discriminating arbitrarily by impact factor. We can use Liner's measure which relies on textbook citations or a more recent measure here which includes more finance and OR journals. What I don't think we can do is pretend that there aren't core journals. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  This does not address my concern in the least. Political economy works just as much out of monographs and collected editions as it does journals, and PE journals are consistently undercited and ranked down by orthodox (or rather, monodox) economists. You've not addressed my concern that the domain of human economic activity is split between at least three disciplinary practices in academia: "economics" as orthodoxy, heterodox economics (of the left and right), and political economy. FRINGE and UNDUE should be able to cover this without additional supplement. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  It's probably split between more than three domains. I also think that the problem you bring up is really only relevant when we have some situation where PE says "this happens" and neoclassical econ says "that happens". Otherwise the interactions don't represent direct conflict where relative weight in citations would even enter in to the picture. And I also think you are overstating this. I don't think we are saying "heterodox schools get no voice" just that "heterodox schools get voice only insofar as we can see they are relevant to the discipline". Hopefully this is what editors are doing anyway. Obviously judging that relevance is hard and maybe sometimes impossible. Where it is impossible then this guideline/goal has less to say. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• To Skip, and probably the last time I'll comment on your views, I'm getting deeply tired of hearing you present your tirade as fact. There is good and serious thought on the subject of economic organization as a social control mechanism, either through measurement and reification or through government/corporate action. You or I may think that Foucault is right or that Haraway is right, but it isn't our job to present our views as the Truth. It is our job to attempt to convey what the current state of the academic conversation is (insofar as we deal w/ academic subjects), not to participate in it. For example, I may think that Ricardian equivalence holds only in very narrow cases and that the response of the bond markets to various stimulus packages bears this out, but it isn't my job to say "all those Chicago economists are jerks for believing this, it's wrong". For one, the current Fed chairman has at least in the past argued that Ricardian equivalence may hold broadly--our article should reflect his view more than my view. We can certainly report on the divisions over government intervention and private response, but simply applying our views that it is bunk doesn't fly.
• To VT, I'm open to the wording being tweaked, but if the end result is that we have a statement along the lines of "go read FRINGE", then we should probably consider not putting something up at all. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To Skip, and probably the last time I'll comment on your views, I'm getting deeply tired of hearing you present your tirade as fact. end quote. I more or less feel the same way about L.K.'s opinion of mainstream (Keynes) being the holy grail of standards. My views are not facts in context, just my views. Wording being tweaked? It appears a pretty much wholesale rejection of L.K.'s edit has taken place so far. So, I will go back to this statement...mainstream has as much to do with reliable sources and consensus as does voting. end quote Glen Gale, from a previous comment connected to this discussion. skip sievert (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream has a lot to do with undue weight, though, which seems to be the issue at hand. Gruntler (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the issue not so much about undue weight. That policy is fairly clear, has wide consensus, and should be easy enough to identify and follow. I think (and I may be very wrong here) the issue at hand is more with the fringe guidelines, and that's where we get into trouble. Undue weight defines a majority, minority and tiny minority view in a simple way based on reliable sources. Fringe on the other hand is very subjected and debatable. If you can turn a minority viewpoint into a fringe theory by debating that the viewpoint departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view, you can apply new rules and guidelines for inclusion and exclusion. Since it much more subjective and debatable, issues become very heated. Personally, I hate debates within the fringe guidelines - it's responsible for a good amount of wikistress during my time here. As a project and for everyone's sanity, I would hope to avoid fringe as much as possible and focus on NPOV weight. I would be fine with referencing policies that we find most useful for the project (even a particular sub-section), but wouldn't care to see us restate bits of those policies here. Morphh ^(talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• In principle, it seems like there is some value in stating the way many editors see Wikipedia policies and how they apply in a specific context. It's not *just* restating. It might be less confusing if contained an essay as opposed to being on the "official" Wikiproject page?
• To Fifelfoo, I'm not familiar with the academic literature in economics, but I wonder if your objection would be an issue in practice. Certainly impact factors and other measures are imperfect. I can see how you might have arguments over, for example, the ordering of the top few ideas in a field depending on which measure you used. But are these measures *so bad* a measure that mainstream views would become counted as minor or fringe views, or vice versa? Gruntler (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In economics (not necessarily in all other disciplines) there is pretty general agreement among the great majority of the profession about which are the top journals and so on. This agreement encompasses people who would describe themselves as neoclassical, Keynesian, behavioral or just mainstream, and covers a wide range of political views from radical free-market to socialist. There are a number of self-consciously heterodox groups (Austrian, institutionalist, Marxist, Sraffian some post-Keynesians) but none of them represent more than a tiny minority and even taken all together they would be a small minority. As in any other field, the majority might be wrong and one of the minority groups might be right (they can't all be!) but that is why we have WP:WEIGHT.JQ (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with LK's suggested project guideline. I'm agnostic on whether it's actually a good idea. I don't think it effects what's considered a reliable source, since it's primarily about WP:UNDUE. I do think it's more about WP:UNDUE than WP:FRINGE, and while fringe comes up, WP:UNDUE comes up more often as a point of contention.CRETOG8(t/c) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys would know better than I on these areas, I don't get to spend as much time as I'd like on this project. Still not sure we should restate policy, but if it's more about UNDUE, than that is an easier position to take. Morphh ^(talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Morph, it's always been about undue. I should not have mentioned fringe, as I do not reference that guideline at all. LK (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reformulated guidelines

Many good points have been made, and I would therefore like to propose a reformulated set of guidelines for your consideration. I've tried hard to cleave close to the language in the polices, and to take into account the objections raised. I hope this is acceptable to consensus. LK (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• The goal of this project is to provide a forum for discussion of economics articles and topics, and through discussion, provide guidelines for articles related to the field of economics and associated subtopics.

...

General guidelines

Project members should keep in mind core Wikipedia policies. When editing, as mandated by Verifiability and No original research, we should attribute economic theories and viewpoints presented to reliable, published sources. We should strive to use reliable sources, which according to Sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. In economics, the most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications; the Handbooks in Economics series often provides a definitive reference source.

Following Neutral point of view, all significant economic theories and viewpoints should be presented fairly, and in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as history and political economy, should not be excluded. However, per Undue weight, theories and viewpoints held by a small minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Articles on minority economic theories and viewpoints should also make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. According to Giving "equal validity", majority and minority views should be described as such.

---

• I'm walking out the door so this has to be short... I certainly appreciate your attention to this LK. I'm still not sure we should be clipping out bits of policy for our project page. Here is an example, in the above text you wrote "We should strive to use the most reliable sources, which according to No original research, are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses, and university-level textbooks." However, this has been chopped removing that NOR also states "... magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." It then goes on to discuss it a little more. While I'm not sure if NOR is the best place to use as a reference for reliable source guidelines, the above seems to give a false impression around the most reliable sources stated in NOR. Ok... goto go. Will try to write more later. Morphh ^(talk) 17:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to invite the general Wikipedia community (both WP:ECON members and non-members, but obviously not me, and not Skip), to comment on my recent addition of guidelines about mainstream and fringe minority theories to the WikiProject Economics page end quote. - That was what was originally proposed in brief. Now it is changed a bit, but basically the same aspect. I do not like anything about this proposal of changing guidelines for a specific group of articles and think this whole idea as presented, is not a good idea. I assume good faith that this, in my view, bad idea, is trying to be got at to improve Wikipedia. I do not think it would improve Wikipedia though because the guidelines as in operation currently now, are clever, cover bases of n.p.o.v. well and r.s. well, and break down aspects of editing in a thoughtful way.

I suggest then that this idea be dropped, and I also echo in agreement a reaction to the initial proposal which seems appropriate for this refactoring of the same information... RFC comment your wording is open, wide open, to abuse and use of impact factors to marginalise legitimate academic heterodoxy and political economy. end quote in regard to the proposed addition of information. - skip sievert (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I reïterate that it is important that the presentation not blur the distinction between policy and what are merely widely endorsed guidelines; and I share Morphh's concern. —SlamDiego_←T 17:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've edited the 'Sources' section slightly to reflect Morph's concern above. LK (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I reïterate that it is important that the presentation not blur the distinction between policy and what are merely widely endorsed guidelines. Further, I wonder what empirical testing there has been of the proposition “In economics, the most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications”. —SlamDiego_←T 02:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just want to note that all the cited policies are policies, no guidelines are cited. I'm essentially suggesting that Econ Wikiproject have guidelines that emphasize that all members should follow core Wikipedia policies – this is something that should be without argument. Also, the wording "the most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications” is straight out of WP:Sources. Is someone going to seriously argue that "academic and peer-reviewed publications" are not the most reliable sources? LK (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• There's always a danger of guidelines creeping-in, and I believe that if this has not happened, then it is on the cusp of happening with the assertion that “In economics, the most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications”; it certainly looks to imply a guideline, nestled in with the policy. And, in any case, if no one can offer appropriate support — either from Wikipedia policy or based on solid empirical work — for that assertion about these publications being the most reliable sources then it must be omitted. As it stand, “Sources” states (without support, but this is not the place to contest the claim) that academic and peer-reviewed publications are “usually” the most reliable sources; to go further to claim that such publications simply are the most reliable sources in some specific field (and a social science at that!) is a significant extension of the claim at “Sources”. —SlamDiego_←T 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be getting close to the critical point. If we agree that peer-reviewed academic publications are the most reliable sources, then there is not much doubt which journals and other publication outlets are most influential: we can just look at citation patterns to see this. And if we extend the field a bit to encompass government reports and think tank analyses, we get the same result. The reports and analyses cite the peer-reviewed literature much more than vice versa. None of this precludes the possibility that the real work is being done at technocracy.org or the Mises Institute, but WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball applies here.JQ (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just quote RS directly:

In academic fields like economics, Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources state that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." The Handbooks in Economics series often provides a definitive reference source.

Clears up any guideline/policy confusion. Adding back the "usually" doesn't really affect things very much. And whether or not it's "scientific," surely we all agree that economics is an academic field. This, in conjunction with "all significant economic theories and viewpoints should be presented fairly, and in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources" from NPOV, seems to me to imply that usually, all significant economic theories and viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their prominence in academic and peer-reviewed publications. Gruntler (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the suggestion although it seems that it merely states what Wikipedia policy already is. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• It states how well-established Wikipedia policy on WP:WEIGHT ought to be applied to an academic discipline like economics. Obviously there is some disagreement on this point that needs to be resolved.JQ (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. To expand on your point: certainly in many other academic disciplines there is no question that, in LK's words, "the most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications." In many disciplines, deprecating the use of magazines, books, newspapers, etc. is entirely appropriate (even though these are explicitly included in the policy WP:SOURCES). Newspaper reporters and editors don't understand even the basics of many academic disciplines and they routinely get important things wrong. I don't know if WP:PHYSICS has "official" guidelines, but I'm quite sure if someone started editing physics articles based on the premise that the New York Times was as reliable a source for physics articles as a textbook or review article, they would be quickly shot down and arguments that they were following the policy in WP:SOURCES to the letter would go nowhere except perhaps to RfC or ANI. WP:WEIGHT applies differently depending on the kind of article you're dealing with. Clarifying that on the project page seems like it could be helpful. Gruntler (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Helpful? Clarifying what? Economics is not science. This is science scientific method. Economics is and always has been a political invention that is also controlled by special interest groups, especially currently. Many economists get paid for their duties. They depend on people believing them. Lets not enforce belief system guidelines on Wikipedia. Krugman won a prize from a Swiss banking consortium. The Prize nobel had a monetary value. Unless he towed a mainstream Keynes view he would not have won. Keynes is probably the default template of current Capitalism, Socialism, etc. This discussion is trying to formalize special policy for an area that is based on abstract concept, opinion, and belief system criteria.

Maintain Wikipedia policy. The policies that apply including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies cover this area and it appears that mostly professional economists or those who identify themselves as such are interested mostly in changing guidelines for economics articles. How is that a good idea? Experts drifting into positions of editing skill could do well to avoid Iron law of oligarchy and go by normal guidelines, which cover normal articles, and economics topics are just normal article related as are all other articles on Wikipedia, so I move the discussion closed, as not a good idea, as to changing criteria for the economics articles. skip sievert (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, economics itself is a science, even though (like most social sciences) it has some very grave problems with unscientific practices on the part of many who strive or pretend to be economic scientists. Most and probably all sciences have ostensible practitioners who deviate from the scientific method.

Whatever may be said against Krugman — and here is not the place for me to ventilate — it is highly doubtful that he has ever taken or rejected a position contrary to what he might otherwise have done, in the hope of grabbing the BoS Nobel Prize. (Further, he wasn't given the prize qua Keynesian, and some profoundly unKeynesian economists have received it in the not-too-distant past.)

There is indeed a conflict of interest for all economists, but that doesn't mean that we are all yielding our scruples in its face. I don't even think that most mainstream economists are doing so; the problem is that they are merely thoughtlessly presuming that the mainstream has been doing a good job of shaking-out its own errors and therefore must be the best approximation of the truth on most points.

To the extent that funding has played a corrupting rôle in economics, it has not much been by getting economists to sell out; it has been Darwinian, as the funded economists (who are typically quite sincere) thrive and the unfunded economists do not. —SlamDiego_←T 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Putting aside the fascinating and entirely on topic discussion of the History and Philosophy of Science, here's my take on how to write such a policy (though I don't know we need it, its more a strict enforcement of existing policy).

Policy

Project members will act in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

Chiefly

• Verifiability
• No original research
• Reliable Sources
• NPOV
• UNDUE
• Weight
• Fringe

In this project reliable sources must be drawn from the most reliable sources: academic and peer reviewed publications. RS should ideally be drawn from works on exactly the sub-discipline in question. In this project UNDUE and Weight should preference the core discussion in the key sub-discipline related to the article. Heterodox articles should be written from impeccable heterodox sources, orthodox articles from impeccable orthodox sources.

Where a subject ranges over a variety of sub-disciplines or methodological approaches, weight should be distributed based on currency within the disciplinary debates. This generally means that non-orthodox views will receive lesser representation and focus, except where the concept or debate is of fundamental importance to that non-orthodox view, for example, Marxist labour theory of value in a discussion of Value in general. When present, minority views should be faithfully characterised, for example, "Marxist political economists..." , "The Austrian School..." , "A handful of Australian heterodox economists..."

Articles on Fringe topics, such as Social Credit, or Single Tax polemics should be written from the Neutral Point of View: that of the main disciplinary debate within economics. The Fringe view should be faithfully characterised according to its own major secondary texts, if it has been a text producing tradition.

Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but WP:FRINGE is not policy. And the claim that in this field academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources is not policy, and no empirical support for such a claim has been offered. —SlamDiego_←T 01:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy tends to be statements of subjective desire rather than empirical fact (again, History and Philosophy of Science reading may assist people here). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but Wikipedia has policy and WP:FRINGE is not a part of it. And I strongly suggest that attempts here to treat it as such end well before they are defeated in Arbitration. —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Such good faith. Your use of threats is an inspiration to consensus building and open discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop. This isn't a productive line of discussion. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is simply not possible until the ancient point that WP:FRINGE is not policy is fully accepted. —SlamDiego_←T 02:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been illustrative to me of the editorial environment of this project. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —SlamDiego_←T 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think fringe needs to be policy in order for editors to feel it is a good idea or argue that it ought to guide practice. It's perfectly acceptable as a guideline and it certainly isn't gutted of any explanatory force by not being policy. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And supporters of the guideline will have to settle for that. —SlamDiego_←T 02:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole discussion of WP:FRINGE seems to me to be a distraction, since (i) the main issue here is WP:WEIGHT and (ii) what is being proposed for this group is also a guideline - no one is claiming that we can lay down policy. On the main point, I'm puzzled by the repeated request of empirical evidence that peer-reviewed articles on economics are the most reliable source (in the sense of verifiability, not truth) for predominant views on economics. What kind of evidence could be used to support or refute this claim beyond the fact, referred to several times already that the vast majority of people recognised by society as economists accept it/JQ (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only is Wikipedia not a general democracy; it's not a democracy of economist. A finding that a majority of economist perhaps believe (have they been polled?) an empirical proposition without empirical testing should not reassure us of its verity. As to how to test it, that would involve a large-scale historical study of economic literature. If it's not worth such testing, then let the proposition itself go. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You two seem to be talking at cross purposes. he's not talking about wholesale validation of core theories inside the discipline. He's talking about some agreed upon evidence of centrality with respect to academic discourse. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever his motives, he's offering an insufficient defense for a proposition very much in need of defense if it's going to be presented amongst policies or guidelines as a fact suggestive of either. —SlamDiego_←T 04:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're making an unreasonable demand. We don't need to assert that the propositions made in economics are "Fact" or the Truth. All we are doing here is reporting on the ongoing discussion within the discipline--not participating in it. this is a much lower level of exploration than you are suggesting. We can discriminate between sources when discussing Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium without demanding that the underlying theory fit some arbitrary level of validity. Protonk (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm making a highly reasonable demand, and you need to be considerably more careful in distinguishing claims from meta-claims. The claim that academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources in economics is not absolved from a burden of proof for itself simply because it makes a weaker claim than Truth for the contents of those publications. In claiming that such publications are the most reliable sources, without empirical support for that proposition, we'd be adopting a dogmatic answer to a question of a social science, even if we don't regard that science as itself economics. —SlamDiego_←T 05:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well arguably I think you've retreated to this more reasonably claim, but it is water under the bridge. I'm also not too interested in formally asserting statements about this source or that source. All I want to do is say that XYZ are the major venues for discussion in the discipline and they should be the main sources for articles. The term "reliable" is an ill fit here, so I'm happy to remove it (or suggest that it be removed). Protonk (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you conceed the reasonableness of what I've been saying all along, even if you're reluctant to acknowledge that I've been saying it all along. (I'd prefer, of course, that you try to make a case that I've retreated, as in doing so you'd find that I'd not at all.) Now: Whether XYZ are the major venues for discussion of a field is a distinct proposition from whether they should be the main sources for articles. It would be more appropriate to claim that the content of articles should tend to be in harmony with major “reliable sources”. —SlamDiego_←T 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree w/ the proposition you have settled on. I feel that we are here to report the ongoing discussion within the discipline, and so if we agree upon the principle venues for that discussion, I have trouble seeing that articles in those venues shouldn't be our main sources. Obviously we might hope for longer lit reviews or textbook treatments (the handbook series will provide both, for those who have them), but an article like this should be used over an article in some peripheral journal. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While you might still disagree, I note that I didn't say that it would be best, only more appropriate. (So I've not settled on it.) And my thinking is that an accessible “reliable source” can in some cases be better than an original article, or the pairing of such an accessible source with an original article can jointly be better than simply be better than the original article. In some case, original articles are the only suitable sources for actual economists, but these original articles are suitable sources only for actual economists — everyone else should be offered a kinder, gentler presentation, so long as it's thoroughly accurate. —SlamDiego_←T 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That point is certainly well taken. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize, other sources may be better to use (if they are more accessible for instance), but the article should always agree with major academic sources, which are after all more reliable. LK (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not “more reliable”. It really is time to stop attempts to confuse mainstreaming (alleged or actual) with conformance to WP:RS. Due weight is to be given to genuinely mainstream thought, which is certainly not the same thing as claiming that sources that are not mainstream are less “reliable”. —SlamDiego_←T 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So, to summarize again, viewpoints presented in articles should conform to academic peer reviewed sources because academic peer reviewed sources more reliably report the discussion, arguments and generally accepted theories and viewpoints of the economics profession. LK (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. There is certainly not a simple equation between the economic profession and the mainstream of such publications; there isn't even a simple equation between academic economists and the mainstream of such publications. —SlamDiego_←T 04:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. There may be something like this as Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Solow describes it here in this peer reviewed journal.

'My impression is that the best and the brightest in the profession proceed as if economics is the physics of society. There is a single universal model of the world. It only needs to be applied. You could drop a modern economist from a time machine…at any time in any place, along with his or her personal computer; he or she could set up business without even bothering to ask what time and which place. In a little while, the up-to-date economist will have maximized a familiar looking present-value integral, make a few familiar log-linear approximations, and run the obligatory regression. The familiar coefficients will be poorly determined, but about one-twentieth of them will be significant at the 5 per cent level, and the other nineteen did not have to be published. With a little judicious selection here and there, it will turn out that the data are just barely consistent with your thesis advisor’s hypothesis that money is neutral (or non-neutral, take your choice) everywhere and always, model an information asymmetry, any old asymmetry, don’t worry, you’ll think of one.' end quote - skip sievert (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, you've made numerous comments that make it clear you are fundamentally unsympathetic to the goals of this project. That's fine - anyone can start a project, no one has to join, and you are welcome to start an anti-economics project if you want. But, given your position, I take your hostility to the proposed policy for the project as evidence that it is making the right kind of distinction. For that reason, I'm reverting your deletion. If other editors feel that this is premature they are welcome to revert me. But I don't feel that, given your stated views, you have any positive contribution to make to this project.JQ (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but Skip's comments have made it pretty clear that he holds the entire academic discipline of economics in contempt (except for the heterodox theory of thermoeconomics). Just as creationists shouldn't be editing guidelines at WikiProject Biology, someone who proclaims that "Economics is pretty much voodoo" (direct quote from above), shouldn't be editing Econ Wikiproject guidelines. LK (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. As I suspected at the beginning what started as a smack down between Austrians and Keynes people originally to harass in my opinion a positive contributor to articles, one Visionthing, is nothing more than now an attack blog forum mainly by so called expert editors with an ax to grind as to their opinions which lie outside of guidelines. If you want to elevate what is pretty much a social science, and that term is a loose one into some truth that is fine but to so adamantly do it, with such taunting and baiting about other contributors to this project is not exactly suggested. Is it a good idea to make criteria as to who is of value on a project and also assume lots of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith in regard to others who are civil and try very hard to edit constructively on Wikipedia economics articles because they are interested and make improvements to articles? Sad really. As to the subject here, you can not make up special guidelines for editing on certain projects that contradict the ordinary editing on Wikipedia which is made up of thoughtful and creative suggestions that have accumulated over time. Also there is no consensus for making new policy guidelines at this time as expressed by others in warnings to not use the the suggested L.K. change to the project page. skip sievert (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I view much of economics as snake oil too, but that guideline is pretty straightforward and follows the wiki policy pretty closely as far as I can make out. It also looks like it is necessary to reinforce the policy as people are confusing WP:VALID with what they consider as the truth. It doesn't matter as far as wikipedia is concerned whether economics theories are true or not, verifiability and weight are what are important. Therefore I believe the policy statement should be reinstated. Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the project page should say something about this matter, since it's clearly important to us (as evidenced, e.g., by the length of this discussion). But rather than rewrite or rephrase the policy and guidelines, I think we should explain how the guidelines apply, in particular, to *this* project. Links to the policies should suffice to explain what they are.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this current edit really consensus (I don't think so), or is it L.K. and J.Q. acting out disruptive opinions at a certain point. At what point do attempts by the same editors to confuse mainstream with 'reliable' count as disruptive? skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change the original text reintroduced by JQ to the proposal I made above (edited slightly to take into account the suggestion made by Gruntler), as I believe the newer wording is better, cleaves more closely to wording from WP policies, and is therefore less contentious. In reply to CRGreathouse, I think a restatement of the policies (closely following the wording, and with appropriate links to the policies) is better than just a link to the policies themselves, as there are some things we want to highlight (such as the fact that economics is an academic discipline). LK (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the attempt to lead the reader to believe that policy says that academic and peer-reviewed journals are the usually the most reliable sources for this field. This claim is not found in policy; there is no consensus for this claim; and there is no empirical support for this claim. —SlamDiego_←T 05:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

LK: I have no problem with short quotes from policy when needed, but I think the focus should be in applying the policies to economics articles rather than restating general policies. I don't think we actually disagree on this point -- do you? CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording is straight out of policy, I quote from Sources: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." If you think you can improve on that sentence, please do so. However, don't revert wholesale what most Wikiproject members want. LK (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As you are quite aware, it is out of context. And we have had clear discussion of the difference between that statement and a statement that a claim specific to economics. You claim is not what most WikiProject members want. ()Nor would the membership of a WikiProject be empowered to misrepresent Wikipedia policy based upon a vote.) Again, we can march this througheach stage of dispute resolution if you wish, but the ultimate conclusion is foregone. —SlamDiego_←T 05:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with refusals to admit the blindingly obvious. After all, you yourself have stated that economics is a science, and as Sources specifically mentions science, it therefore applies. As for the guidelines on the main page, let's leave that up for now. Let's see if anyone else agrees with your argument. LK (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, let's not. But now we have you admitting that you are attempting to make the claim specific to economics. Sources may specifically mention sciences, but it makes no claim that it is universally true amongst sciences that academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources. —SlamDiego_←T 05:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I rally feel like you're focusing too much on the letter of the policy and not the underlying principle it's meant to express. The language in the policy is expansive and inclusive. Is there any reason to think it shouldn't apply to economics?

I feel like I could point to this discussion as an excuse to ignore the policy in any field. "Hey, the policy makes no claim that it is universally true amongst sciences that academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources, so I can ignore it in this biology discussion!" When I read the policy, I interpret it as saying that academic sources are preferred when available, unless there's some very convincing argument to the contrary for a particular case. Gruntler (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The letter of policy has been and will be extensively discussed, so as to have meaning and intention match as closely as is possible. Now, I didn't merely note that policy failed to support the claim that academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most “reliable” sources; I asked, alternately, for an empirical demonstration. Even without policy, if this ostensible optimality can be properly demonstrated, then it's perfectly fair to make the claim on the WikiProject page. (In fact, much better than a citation of policy, as far as I'm concerned; but I yield to policy.) But it's evidently just really an article of faith for some when it comes to economics. —SlamDiego_←T 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to understand how you interpret the policy. Doesn't your argument completely negate the policy? How can I ever point to that policy in support of any edit in any subject if one can always respond that the policy isn't universally true? Can you sketch for me a hypothetical example, in any field, where I could point to that policy to defend an edit without running into a "well, the policy isn't universal" counterargument? I think that seeing an example would help me to better understand your objections to applying the policy to economics. Gruntler (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't completely negate the policy, but it indeed recognizes that the specific declaration there is very modest. If someone wants to argue that one “reliable source” trumps another, then it's going to have to be on some basis other than citing that declaration. —SlamDiego_←T 20:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So when does this policy apply? Gruntler (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If, by that, you mean to ask when this policy has effect (a somewhat different question from that of when it applies), the answer is that its most frequent effect is no more than to suggest to an editor that he or she ought to consider seeking and using academic or peer-reviewed publications. Beyond that, it's little more than an existence statement, which says that there will be cases (and frequent cases) in some fields where these publications trump other “reliable sources”, but does not tell us when and how. Hence the question that I asked ab initio: Where's the empirical proof for this claim in the specific case of economics? —SlamDiego_←T 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Primarily addressing SlamDiego: Many project members see a need for some kind of guideline to help focus attention on giving material appropriate weight, because issues of undue weight come up so dang much. This appears both in giving undue weight to minority views in more general articles, and in effective POV-forks on minority approaches. Is there a way you could phrase a guideline to help with this, or do you think any such guideline is just begging for abuse? CRETOG8(t/c) 12:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I count myself among Cretog8's "many project members". CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the point of wanting to including such content on our project page, but let's talk about the purpose. Perhaps someone could explain what such a guideline on our project page is intended to do and how it will be used, then we can best come up with a phrasing. It seems to me that any dispute would be better served by directly referencing policy and general dispute resolution methods. This is all very unspecific, but disputes can often be very specific. As a project, I guess we could place something like an FAQ referencing those key policies, but really, why is this wikiproject different than most wikiprojects on weight issues. I think an attempt to alter or refocus such policy by defining project guidelines will be met with resistance. I'm resistant and I agree with LK regarding the best sources and the issue. The entire thing could be extremely contentious, and I hate to put something down as a guideline for the project, to then have it used like an weapon with reference to wikiproject consensus. So to Cretog8's comment, I think it's begging for abuse if we do more than just reference or restate policy in context. So what are we gaining at that point? Does anyone know of any other wikiprojects that are doing something similar that we could look at and reference? Morphh ^(talk) 15:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo Morph... It seems to me that any dispute would be better served by directly referencing policy and general dispute resolution methods. This is all very unspecific, but disputes can often be very specific. As a project, I guess we could place something like an FAQ referencing those key policies, but really, why is this wikiproject different than most wikiprojects on weight issues. I think an attempt to alter or refocus such policy by defining project guidelines will be met with resistance. end quote. This whole line of thinking about making special guidelines was a bad idea in the first place, and it has been intertwined with lots of animosity and accusations by the person endorsing a special case for economics articles,... to put it mildly.

And, SlamDiego has been able to gather consensus for something (not doing this idea by L.K.), through citing policy, even when a flurry emotional and iffy claims of consensus/vote have been made in order to keep the misguided information on the Project Page. Again, WP:RS doesn't in any-way say an article should be given a "mainstream" narrative but rather, citations become reliable when they've shown up in "mainstream discourse," In the mean time the project page would do well not to have the suggested material on it. skip sievert (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cretog8: Although I did not directly address the issue of sourcing, about a year ago I proposed the beginnings of neutral guidelines on weighting; my proposal was resoundingly ignored by all camps; that may suggest that I lacked sufficient competence, or it may tell you that this project as a whole was not receptive to genuine neutrality. In any case, at this point, as things here have evolved, I'm sure that any competent and sincere attempt by anyone to produce such a guideline would be hijacked. (Observe how an editor and I had a discussion in which I said that we couldn't simply declare that academic and peer-reviewed journals were the most reliable, he said that the position that I had taken was reasonable, and a third editor “summarized” that discussion with the assertion that these publications were the most reliable.) —SlamDiego_←T 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This brings up another question for me. Even if we were to assume academic publications are the most reliable or higher quality - it does not necessarily follow that weight of articles be based primarily on those sources. The quality of a reliable source is really only relevant for getting the best sources for a particular piece of information or if your attributing an opinion it makes sense to do so to the most reliable sources. But within reliable sources, it doesn't follow that we assign weight of the article based on some estimation of source quality. It is either reliable or not, if it is... then per weight, we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It doesn't say in proportion based on the "most" reliable sources. So I'm trying to understand this focus regarding academic textbooks and peer-reviewed journals. We have to keep in mind systemic bias that could occur by focusing guidelines on specific sources. Morphh ^(talk) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinions wikipedians are focused on systemic bias because it is a laudable 'goal' of new media. But we kind of miss the boat. Or we zero in on the wrong bias. In my opinion, this represents a systemic bias (though it is nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be). Protonk (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh. We go down the rabbit hole pretty quickly when we start talking about genuine neutrality. There are some glaring unobserved assumptions about NPOV, RS and OR which we aren't likely to fix in the near future. Also I don't know that you can dragoon my agreement with you into some broad evidence for disingenuousness on the part of other editors here. You made a flurry of points in the sections above, some reasonable and some not so reasonable. I fully admit that I support a weaker proposition than LK or JQ for guidelines (with full knowledge that if it is too weak it might not be worth the bother), but I don't agree with your main point that current policy/practice doesn't support the exclusion of sets of sources from articles on the basis that they are liable to be innacurate or unreliable. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I didn't even assert that you'd said that my position (on “most”) was correct, only that you'd characterized it as reasonable; and I offered no assessment of what you believe about the third editor. Please be as careful not to misrepresent me as I am not to misrepresent you. —SlamDiego_←T 20:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for mistakenly assuming that I was the unnamed editor you noted above. Please try not to see it as a deliberate mischaracterization. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see you as deliberately mischaracterizing anyone, but a large share of the problem in this discussion is carelessness. —SlamDiego_←T 20:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is just what I wrote, changed only to use bullets:

• an editor and I had a discussion in which I said that we couldn't simply declare that academic and peer-reviewed journals were the most reliable,
• he said that the position that I had taken was reasonable, and
• a third editor “summarized” that discussion with the assertion that these publications were the most reliable

So who is being dragooned here? —SlamDiego_←T 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SlamDiego, referring to your proposed "beginnings of neutral guidelines on weighting", I assume you're referring to this? If so, I think it should be reproduced here for people to respond to, since having an alternative may move us closer to something. As for hijacking, I think taking that position is assuming bad faith and, whether justified or not, reduces your role in this discussion to naysayer. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right about reviving that proposal, but (1) I think that the flames have to die back and the smoke has to clear before the principal effect of a reintroduction would be anything other than to cause more chaos, and (2) I am not sufficiently hopeful to make any further attempts, though I would not object to someone else later bringing up those proposed principles.

I note to you that there is a difference between assumption and inference. And I believe that an unwillingness on the part of some good faith editors to say “nay” to certain parties has only served to encourage those parties in proceeding. If those good faith editors had told those parties “no” more often, then I my rôle not only could but would have been different. —SlamDiego_←T 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading the link posted by Cretog8 of SlamDiego's post - I thought that a pretty good post. Morphh ^(talk) 0:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent-I have no idea the indentation level for this conversation now) I've been mostly sitting this conversation out. In any case, I hadn't given the reformulated guidelines any real thought. Now I have, and I think that LK's honest effort to construct guidelines which can gain consensus has unfortunately moved in the wrong direction. WP:RS is certainly important for the project, but I haven't seen that as being a significant problem, so placing emphasis on RS is the wrong way to go. Any troubles come from undue weight. RS is relevant to the discussion as far as WP:UNDUE says, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." If this single sentence is the source of the strife over how to treat WP:RS, then that's what needs to be addressed. My attempt just now to get it straight in my head leaves me thinking that one sentence may be incompatible with our project goals. There are many sources on economics which most of us would recognize as being both minority view and still a reliable source, and I don't think trying to encircle the entire set of reliable sources on economics and counting various viewpoints is a feasible approach. So, I think it's possible that discussion of a pithy guideline is premature (although I think the earlier, pithier attempt was better), and that what we first need to figure out is how do we identify minority viewpoints and apply wp:undue for this project? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points Cretog8. This seems to be an issue also -> L.K's edit summaries in recent reverts done by himself on the project page are misleading or inaccurate and giving inaccurate editing summaries to bolster or seemingly to bolster a view point that points toward there being a consensus when there is not a consensus for a change: Example of edit summary by Lawrence Khoo: 06:06, 30 September 2009 Lawrencekhoo (talk | contribs) (7,730 bytes) (Reverted to revision 316834040 by SlamDiego; Reinstating Slamdiego's version. Let's work from here, as an overwhealming majority of people want to see guidelines of some sort. (TW)) (undo) edit summary .

Is that the case? No. There are no shortage of guidelines on Wikipedia of a direct sort that cover issues concerning economics articles. skip sievert (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sniping in here quickly with a comment, since the RFC is still open (which is how I found this discussion), attempting to "clarify" the policies and guidelines locally in this way is something that I strongly object to. Even the current "reminder" is unnecessary and I would support its removal as well. The same policies and guidelines apply to articles in every subject area. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A mediation is being set up near the end of this talk page (not the one in the next section, that split up in acrimony) to try and decide these points by the interested parties. Unfortunately different people can read the same document different ways, also if there is consensus a guideline is required then that is perfectly allowable as far as I can see provided it does not conflict with policy. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Local consensus never overrides community wide consensus. Gigs (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Where do you think someone is trying to do that? We can't override policy with a guideline but that's about it. I see no necessity for doing that, but if it is in the interests of improving the articles and a policy was stopping that then the policy can be changed. The first order of business though is to decide what to do to stop the edit warring and ensure good articles fit for an encyclopaedia are produced. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A wikiproject guideline can't override a community wide guideline, or anything else that has community wide consensus. If you want special treatment of a subject area that overrides the general guideline, you'll have to make sure that you get a community-wide consensus for it. I don't see any community-wide proposals for a new standalone guideline that would be independent of the wikiproject. Has one been made? Gigs (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No of course none has been made. There is no agreement couple of steps back like what does some policy actually mean. There would have to be some agreement here first, and then there may or may not be agreement that a guideline is needed. If there was agreement after those ifs then actually setting up a new content guideline would probably be the smallest hurdle. All sorts of things could happen. There are some very legalistic types here so just attaching some advice or essay to the wikiproject may not be enough to ensure relative peace. That's why a guideline might be necessary. You seem to be trying to say something but I can't quite figure out what. Dmcq (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation

In the face of Khoo's refusal to accept that there is insufficient foundation for the claim that academic and peer-reviewed publications are the usually the most reliable source for economics, I will be filing a request for mediation, specific to this issue. Before I do so, I would like to know who here would like to be included as a party. If you'd like to be included, then please clearly indicate as much in reply to this comment. —SlamDiego_←T 06:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm gonna go on record here and say this isn't worth the fight. If we compromise to the point where the text on Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics is a bland restatement of existing guidelines, then no net gain has occurred. And even if we agree on some more expansive language for a local guideline, folks already inclined to promote heterodox sources aren't going to care. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it's going to mediation unless Lawrencekhoo agrees to the removal of the claim in question. I woudl agree that the whole controvery is not going to result in a statement worth having. But the movement to have a statement was begun as a stalking horse and it should now be clear to all parties what is behind the horse. Given that there is mediation, do you wish to be included? —SlamDiego_←T 06:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk makes a good point. I'm going to revert to the original version based on his proposal. Since SD has not objected to it before, I suppose he prefers it as well. LK (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have not reviewed the original, and therefore have pretty much no opinion about it right now. —SlamDiego_←T 07:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• It is better (as it no longer overtly misrepresents policy), but it proposes a weighting based only upon academic sources. Weighting should be in response to “reliable sources” more generally. This is clearly indicated by the present status of Keynesian economics, which is far more influential upon political policy than it is upon academia (notwithstanding its very substantial influence upon academia). If a theory got nothing but a brush-off by academics, but played some clearly significant rôle elsewhere (eg in politics) then it should receive greater coverage than that given it by academics (so long as the coverage were drawn from “reliable sources” of some sort). —SlamDiego_←T 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • So then the next step is to ask you. Is there some guideline which, if you could magick it into existence, would dissuade POV pushers while not marginalizing important views? Notwithstanding the obvious differences between this project and the medicine wikiproject (no one undertakes policy decisions based on the info here, but people make decisions about their health after looking at medicine related articles), could we create some version of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)? Should we create such a guideline? Protonk (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see a link to any RfM here. I like to laugh at silliness. 209.217.195.156 (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Y'know, in any context where participants had sufficient clarity of thought and willingness to set aside PoV to produce such guidelines, they'd probably be unnecessary anyway. Nothing more than occasional informal discussion here would be needed. In the absence of such clarity and willingness, I don't think that any guideline appearing by magic could have the proposed effect. But the attempt to state guidelines is not to have such effect, but rather mostly to have a sort of rule in future that can be said to have been violated when someone wants to bring a complaint against an editor who's not toeing the imposed line. Actual Wikipedia policies don't serve that function to the satisfaction of some here, so de facto policy is going to be spun out of an ostensible interpretation of policy. —SlamDiego_←T 10:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• It certainly is looking like mediation is required. I would like to point out yet again that what Wikipedia is interested in is verifiability not truth. And that applies to the concept of a reliable source as well. It does not matter if some economist is far better than anyone else and has theories that would solve all the problems of the world. What matters is that the theories have been peer reviewed and other people have commented on them and given them a weight, and that weight should be reflected in wikipedia. If the economics project can agree to extra reputable sources besides those already agreed by thorough discussion elsewhere in wikipedia then fine, but to start with the agreed wikipedia policies should be followed. Weight can be expressed fairly easily in an article by for instance saying it is generally agreed in a particular school of thought. If the contrary opinions pertain mainly to the school of thought rather than that bit then they should be mainly associated with the article on the school of thought. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And as to SlamDiego saying some theories are used more in the real world than in academia, I'm afraid the wiki policies are quite clear and tough. Vedrifiability is what is required not truth. Lots of articles in wikipedia on things which are quite obviouly important to lots of people are deleted because they are not able to even establish notability. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite easy to verify that some theories are used more in the real world than in academia. The point is that we should use all “reliable sources” rather than only the academic subset thereof. Doing so is, in fact, policy. —SlamDiego_←T 10:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifying in that sense sounds like original research to me which is expressly forbidden. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is no more “original research” to use any “reliable source” than to use any other “reliable source”. People can read-into non-academic publications what is not there, but they can read-into academic publications what is not there. —SlamDiego_←T 11:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You said "It's quite easy to verify that some theories are used more in the real world than in academia". The way of doing this is to use a reputable source that says so, not to just come up with your own ideas. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely true, but only useful in attacking a straw man of your own creation. When “reliable sources” that are not academic pay significantly more attention to a theory than do academic “reliable sources”, the weighting of the subject should not be merely proportional to coverage in academic sources. —SlamDiego_←T 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that arguing from real world will in many instances count as original research using primary sources. Secondary sources commenting on ideas or comparing them is to be preferred. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are quite confusing arguing from observation of the real world with drawing upon non-academic “reliable sources” that report on events outside of academia. —SlamDiego_←T 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. I will sign on if this goes that far, which probably would be not a good idea and a waste of time, but then that is my opinion. Lets just say that L.K., and J.Q. who are advocates/writers for mainstream economics ala Krugman, want to be able to revert people that disagree, and then be able to site policy to have some things dismissed as fringe or not notable enough, because it does not appear in publications they may think are important, even though other information that may disagree with so called mainstream ideas are notable as reliable sources and also peer reviewed as such. That is my calling a spade a spade. The point is that we should use all 'reliable sources' rather than only an academic subset thereof. Doing so is, in fact, policy. I suggest at this time that L.K. withdraw his proposal, and that it was not well met as to response as to the idea in general. No hard feelings, and not a big deal. skip sievert (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example please of a citation that you think is acceptable and should be given some weight but you fear might be removed by what was proposed? Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, a Mediation that seemed not to work wouldn't be a waste of time, it would open the door to a next stage of dispute resolution. Further, let me make it clear that the Mediation that I proposed wasn't to be an Arbitration writ weak. (Though Arbitration would be requested if the Mediation were unsuccessful.) Editor conduct would not have been at issue; content of a purported policy or guideline would. Indeed, I have not been paying enough attention to the content battles that have led back here to know who, if anyone, are the Good Guys, nor to be clear on whether some specific editors are Bad Guys, or just occasionally reach beyond their grasp. —SlamDiego_←T 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) What the mediation would be arguing for is that there should be an exception to Wikipedia policies for economics. Unlike other subjects that reflect mainstream thought, economic articles should be based on whatever the public happens to believe or has an influence on political decision-making. I suggest that this proposed change in policy should be presented to a broader audience since it affects the overall neutrality of Wikipedia. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what would be proposed. What would be argued is

1. that policy does not support a claim that in economics only academic or peer-reviewed publications are “reliable sources”
2. that policy does not support a weighting in which “reliable sources” that are non-academic are assigned a weight of zero
3. that policy does not support a claim that in economics academic or peer-reviewed publications are the most “reliable sources”
4. that policy does not support a claim that in economics academic or peer-reviewed publications are usually the most “reliable sources”
5. that there is no empirical support for a claim that in economics academic or peer-reviewed publications are the most “reliable sources”
6. that there is no empirical support for a claim that in economics academic or peer-reviewed publications are usually the most “reliable sources”

and that, therefore, the WikiProject page should not make any such declarations about reliability or weighting. It's pretty straight-forward, which is why the ultimate outcome of the dispute is a foregone conclusion, so long as opponents of these spurious claims are sufficiently patient.

Of course, the attempt to have such claims on the WikiProject page could be ended before we got to Mediation, and there seems greater plausibility now that a Mediation is avoidable than when I asked would-be participants to identify themselves. —SlamDiego_←T 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this not make economics an exception different from all other disciplines? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not; and it certainly doesn't mean that “economic articles should be based on whatever the public happens to believe or has an influence on political decision-making”. But, in any case, one does not have to explain what policy does say to demonstrate that it doesn't say what some parties here claim it to say. —SlamDiego_←T 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If we decide that RS "policy does not support a claim that in economics only academic or peer-reviewed publications are “reliable sources”" "policy does not support a claim that in economics academic or peer-reviewed publications are the most “reliable sources”", it either applies across the board or only to economics. In either case it should be discussed as part of RS overall. Either it means a clarification (or revision) of the policy or it means an exception. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the logic there doesn't obtain. But, nonetheless, policy certainly doesn't declare of any field that “only academic or peer-reviewed publications are ‘reliable sources’", and you'll not get support to change policy across all fields on that score. (But, don't let me stop you from trying for such a policy.) —SlamDiego_←T 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that are the only reliable sources, just that they are the most reliable sources. Again, if you think that this understanding is wrong, then changes should be made to WP:RS]]. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but read your own words again; I copied-and-pasted, adding only the underscore and fixing the interior quotation marks. You're not even reading yourself correctly; let alone policy. —SlamDiego_←T 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are obviously more skilled in cutting and pasting than I am. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the stated policy should be revised to declare “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and in each field usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.” or “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in each areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.” or something like that, then you are free to argue as much in a more general forum. Every Mediation could be effectively voided by a revision of policy (including those that do not overtly invoke policy); that doesn't mean that policy changes should be pursued instead of Mediation based upon present policy. —SlamDiego_←T 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I endorse 1 through 6 by SlamDiego and the connected summation to that. These seem like basic affirmations to what already exists. I also suggest that without much more ado, the proposal to change policy or guidelines by L.K. and endorsed by J.Q. be dropped without a lot of ceremony, and that this idea was not a good idea in the first place. 1. through 6. above pretty much refutes their being a good idea. I also hope this is a cautionary tale for expert editors. When a couple of expert editors try and change policy they are going to be scrutinized and subjected to further and further scrutiny most likely. Also I am reminded of the words of Alfred Eichner 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. end quote

Also the idea of mainstream/heterodox as to economics is iffy, and if there is a significant difference between Austrian and Keynes people it is lost on me, and I suspect both groups will end up as extinct like the Marxians. Both stem from the 25th. through 18th. century B.C. pretty much with not much modification really. As the economic and cultural horizon collapses around us, that is just my 2cents on it. skip sievert (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we just have these attacks on Austrian School and Keynesian economics, followed by expressions of indignation by Keynesian editors, expressed in a single loop of pseudocode? It would save some space here. —SlamDiego_←T 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it as personal policy to ignore troll baiting. I suggest that others do likewise. LK (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To hopefully clarify the issues: how much disagreement is there on SD's points? I don't think anyone has ever disputed #5 and #6, for example, so it'd be silly and misleading to include these in mediation. Myself, I disagree with SD on #4 only. Gruntler (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mediation would concern four conclusions. Each of those four conclusions has been manifest in something actually seriously proposed here, or slapped onto the WikiProject page, typically or always more than once. Each of these four should be raised in Mediation, but the responsible editors would be able to immediately repudiate them, closing that part of the dispute.

Points 5 and 6 would be raised during initial argument, to address a way in which those conclusions might be defended in the absence of policy. If no one subsequently attempted to employ such a defense, then the matter of those defenses would end right there. —SlamDiego_←T 05:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, you've significantly reworded other people's arguments and proposals in a way that removes a great deal of nuance--something you have strenuously objected to when other people are doing the rewording. At any rate, I have a hard time seeing good coming from including positions which no one defends, but in the end I don't see this as important enough to fight over. Gruntler (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I've not in that list worded (nor pretended to word) other people's arguments at all. I've stated simply that these conclusions cannot successfully be defended based upon actual policy nor based upon empirical evidence, at least one of which they would have to do. Nothing in my statement obstructs an attempt during Mediation to present a nuanced argument that one of them somehow does follow from policy or from empirical evidence, nor would it stop anyone from attempting a nuanced argument that Divine Revelation or somesuch may be used to defend the conclusions. Each of those arguments would fail, but I've not blocked their introduction. There's no hypocrisy on my part here; you're just being sloppy. —SlamDiego_←T 08:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Each of those four conclusions has been manifest in something actually seriously proposed here, or slapped onto the WikiProject page." That is not merely stating that these conclusions cannot be defended. Gruntler (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote “each of those four conclusions”, so let's not confuse the four conclusions with the six assertions about the conclusions. To do so is sloppiness involving not even noting the difference between 4 and 6. And I didn't claim to be quoting the manifestations. If someone says “X is 4.14” then I can fairly claim that they have asserted that X is greater than 3. I'm not misrepresenting them in arguing against their claim by asserting that X is less than or equal to 3, even though I've ignored the nuance of the precise claim. So, again, there's no hypocrisy on my part. —SlamDiego_←T 10:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I quoted you, "those four conclusions has been manifest..." I then closely paraphrased a statement about how you didn't reword anything but "stated simply that these conclusions cannot successfully be defended." There's hardly any other content in my last edit so I don't see where you're seeing a reference to the six assertions. As for the rest, I will simply note that others probably felt that they were not misrepresenting your claims, either. Gruntler (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said “simply that these conclusions cannot successfully be defended” were the six propositions, which you had previously asserted were misrepresentations. The fact that I say $P$ about $X$ and said something about $Y$ hardly means that I said $P$ about $Y$ unless you equate $Y$ with $X$. Further, there was no misrepresentation in claiming that “Each of those four conclusions has been manifest in something actually seriously proposed here, or slapped onto the WikiProject page, typically or always more than once.” Again, if someone says that X is 4.14, that entails the claim that X is greater than 3. I not say that the four conclusions that I listed were baldly placed on the WIkiProject page or here.

The point that “others probably felt that they were not misrepresenting your claims” doesn't change the fact that they demonstrably were. I didn't claim that the misrepresentation was deliberate; in at least one case that comes immediately to mind, I'm quite sure that it wasn't. But misrepresentation doesn't become acceptable for being unintended. —SlamDiego_←T 21:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So I think it's clear now, but to remove all possibility of misunderstanding, I'm going to restate it. Your first reference to "four conclusions" in this subthread refers to the four numbered statements below in the "mediation statement" subsection. Your later reference in this subthread to "these conclusions" in "that list" refers to the six statements higher in this thread, which you also label as "propositions" and "assertions." Is this correct? Gruntler (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

True 'nuff. The 6 assertions are what I would argue; the four conclusions would be those against which I would argue. If an unanticipated defense were offered for any of those four, then I would have to add to the six assertions made above. (But the point made below by Vision Thing appears to render all but the last two of my arguments moot.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• L.K. it is noted that you just called another editor a troll. Not good. Also that you seem to be abusing an editing tool called twinkle in a recent revert here [36]. Not good. Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies. I do not think you should have this editing tool at your disposal as I now note that you use it in content/policy disputes like this one. You argued this in your edit summary Policy is not being misrepresented. See WP:SOURCES., but this is under extreme contention. In other words, you have used this editing practice (Twinkle) before to defend your view of guidelines, when your view of guidelines does not follow guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a frivolous warning designed to insult. I have on several occasions before asked you not to make personal comments. If you continue to insult myself or others, I'll have no choice but to report you to ANI. LK (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so much L.K. - You are the one above that called someone a troll. That is not frivolous. It is noted that you are the person referred to that did that just now, if that is what you mean. Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. skip sievert (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation statement

Since it looks like mediation is inevitable to resolve the issue, I would sign on for mediation, but the mediation proposal must by NPV and must not guide in any way. Hence I propose a simple mediation statement: LK (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some who think that the following guidelines should be included in Wikiproject Economics, and some who do not.

• Core Economics articles should present economic theories proportional to their weight in standard textbooks, academic handbooks, and major academic journals.
• Notable alternative viewpoints should be included with proper weight.
• Following Wikipedia policy, peripheral or parochial theories should not have their centrality to the discipline misrepresented.

An alternative set of guidelines has also been proposed:

Project members should keep in mind core Wikipedia policies. When editing, as mandated by Verifiability and No original research, we should attribute economic theories and viewpoints presented to reliable, published sources. We should strive to use reliable sources, which according to Sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Also according Sources, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. The Handbooks in Economics series often provides a definitive reference source. Following Neutral point of view, all significant economic theories and viewpoints should be presented fairly, and in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as history and political economy, should not be excluded. However, per Undue weight, theories and viewpoints held by a small minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Articles on minority economic theories and viewpoints should also make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. According to Giving "equal validity", majority and minority views should be described as such.

Mediation is sought to resolve this issue.

I cannot find anywhere that mediation could resolve this dispute. Can anyone please provide a link to the page that covers this type of dispute? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDIATION describes mediation, WP:DISPUTE describes the whole heirachy of the conflict resolution process. Mediation can address any content issue, but will only be undertaken if everyone agrees. If people disagree with Mediation, it can be taken to the next level WP:ARBITRATION. LK (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not even approximately a simple statement of the issue. The issue is whether the WikiProject page will declare any one of the following:

1. only academic or peer-reviewed publications are “reliable sources”
2. only academic or peer-reviewed publications should be given weight
3. academic or peer-reviewed publications are the most “reliable sources”
4. academic or peer-reviewed publications are usually the most “reliable sources”

And if Mediation didn't resolve that, then the next step would be Arbitration, which will doubtless involve broader issues. The results of Arbitration wouldn't be what some imagine; there would be restrictions, blocks and probably bans across camps, but the programme that you've been trying to effect would be ended. —SlamDiego_←T 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not familiar with this I thought that mediation was for disputes regarding the contents of specific articles or for disputes with other editors not for issues that will affect other editors and articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right that Mediation is typically about content; and Protonk (below) is certainly right that Arbitration is never about content per se; but persistent misrepresentation of policy by an editor on a WikiProject page would be a behavioral issue. —SlamDiego_←T 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This will just get denied at RFAR, as it should. It's pretty nakedly a content dispute, the attempt at mediation is/was superficial, and the actual content isn't outside the capacity of the community to handle. So just a heads up to folks pushing this along the DR chain, it's gonna stop at RFAR and just get punted back. Protonk (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The content dispute would indeed be rejected by RFAR. But a Mediation on the simple content issue would exhibit behavior relevant to Arbitration. —SlamDiego_←T 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well that's certainly an interesting outlook. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't mistake me. If the sub-community here can stop the attempts to create policy by ostensible interpretation, without use of these instruments, that'd be fine with me. I'm simply not sanguine. And, further, I think that what chance there may be of avoiding such measures is increased if the brink is shown to some parties well before we get to it. —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of mediation, which will likely not fly, as someone will likely disagree to it (and won't if we can't even agree on a mediation proposal); How about a requested third party 'admin closure' on the RfC? Would that be the way to go? I think it's important that something as basic as this be clearly stated and resolved. I mean, if WP:MEDICINE can hammer out Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) (and they surely have no lack of contention there), we should be able to have a paragraph or two on weight, reliable sources and economics as an academic discipline. LK (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • “(and won't if we can't even agree on a mediation proposal)” Oh, we can, but that involves not resisting a genuinely simple statement of what has been actually disputed. (If you want Mediation with other editors about other matters, that should be separately.) —SlamDiego_←T 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to pursue mediation over the statement "Policy does not support a claim that 'in economics, academic or peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available'", I'm open to that. But everyone will have to agree, or at least not disagree. LK (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've listed the four conclusions over which I would request Mediation. My presumption is that the defense of any one of these would be in terms of policy, but the Mediation should not be founded on that presumption. We can cross that bridge once the Mediation is begun.
  • While it would certainly be better to have as many of those who have been disputants involved if those same disputants would be brought to agreement, the fact is that a Mediation could be be conducted between any two disputants, resolving only the disagreement between them, even if everyone else subsequently acted liked rabid wolverines. If Mediation were required to end all dispute on any issue, then it would be foredoomed, because new editors are constantly entering the system, and there certainly is a limit to how much they may be considered bound by the agreements into which they never entered. —SlamDiego_←T 08:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

Wikipedia has a policy on writing policies and guidelines. It states that "Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders." In one of the footnotes it provides an example of what shouldn't be done: "Perhaps Wikipedia:Verifiability is 'summarized' and reworded (non-substantively, of course!) in a guideline, so that editors don't have to check the longer (official, carefully-worded, more-rigorously maintained) version. All of this is scope creep. Keep policies to themselves." It seems to me that this is direct violation of Wikipedia policy. -- Vision Thing -- 08:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. —SlamDiego_←T 08:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the existence of multiple editors saying that the proposed guidelines have no basis in policy points to the non-redundancy of these guidelines. Gruntler (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the statements on the WikiProject page are not redundant, then they are not preëxisting policy. In which case, the justification that some people have been offering for them fails. If no other defense besides policy can be offered for them, then it's a Catch-22 situation: They're either forbidden as redundant, or forbidden as wrong. —SlamDiego_←T 08:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the arguments of "some people" do fail here. But there's a difference between "guideline X is exactly the same as policy" and "guideline X is closely related to and is consistent with policy." Gruntler (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse “guideline” with “policy”, as these are distinct in the context of Wikipedia.

So far, the claim from defenders of the disputed policies and guidelines has been that they are simply a restatement of existing policy; it would appear that there are going to have to be some reversals for the actual disputes to continue (though of course new disputes might arise over new and meaningfully different proposals).

Some guidelines may indeed be able to withstand this policy. And. further, at least in theory, a statement of policy peculiar to economics that was not simply derived from general policy but involved the combined implication of policy with something else (such as empirical evidence about reliability) could withstand the policy against redundancy. —SlamDiego_←T 10:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are not needless if they are necessary. It seems pretty obvious from the discussions here that some guidelines are necessary. I fully agree though that in the main they should just point out the policies that are particularly relevant and cause problems. The problems I have seen mainly above is people saying there is economics as practiced which doesn't correspond with academic study and that the economics as practiced should be given greater weight that would be justified by a straightforward reading of WP:Reliable sources. Is my understanding correct? I know in mathematics people sometimes stick stuff in and say it is verifiable because they can work it out easily or Mathematica churns it out, however such results can be disputed and removed under WP:VERIFY because they are not in the literature. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth where verifiability is as defined by WP:VERIFY. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

First, we're discussing policy, not guidelines. The content that has been disputed has been asserted to be policy.

Second, policy doesn't allow redundant statement of policy, even if some might see that redundancy as useful. We don't get to violate policy on the WikiProject page on the grounds that we think it ill-considered. If one doesn't want to follow policy, then one argues against it in a more general forum. If one succeeded in such an effort concerning the policy cited by Vision Thing, then the question of stating policy here could be revisited.

Third, no, you've mischaracterized the dispute. No one has argued in principle for the use of sources that are not “reliable”; the dispute has been over whether a class of “reliable” sources are to trump any and all other “reliable” sources. —SlamDiego_←T 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from that document "Guidelines are primarily advisory. They advise on how to prevent or avoid causing problems, and on how to apply and execute policy under specific circumstances". Chunks of policies should not be quoted and I think the present guideline says far too much along policy lines. It should though reference the bits of the policies which are causing widespread problems. I would also like to see one of these citations which would be given low weight according to a straightforward reading of WP:RS but which supposedly should really be given a much higher weight. If the economics project can come to some sort of consensus agreement on such sources and their acceptability for general use then putting that in the guidelines would I believe also be a good idea. Without such consensus agreement either generally for the project or for particular articles any arbitration would choose the straightforward reading of WP:RS and give greater weight to academic and peer refereed articles than other sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that guidelines in general should be consistent with but not merely repeat Wikipedia policies. However, I think the inclusion of the current guidelines on the main page should be seen as only a first step. Eventually, there should be a page WP:Reliable sources and weight (economics-related articles), just like WP:Medicine has WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). After the current issue is resolved, we can start looking at what to put into a longer guideline, and seek acceptance from the broader community. Personally, I think we're very near a resolution. Right now, the only point of contention is whether, in an academic discipline like economics, does policy support that "academic or peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available". I'm willing to reconsider this if in Dmcq's words, we can see "one of these citations which would be given low weight according to a straightforward reading of WP:RS but which supposedly should really be given a much higher weight." If no examples are forthcoming, we should move forward and put this issue behind us. LK (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Even the parts of the propostions to which I have had no prior objection run afoul of the policy that Vision Thing cites. All of it has been an ostensible restatement of policy. We cannot simply relabel it as a “guideline” to get past the prohibition. Further, the prior agreement to the proposals cannot be assumed to have been anything beyond an acquiescence to policy; any such acquiescence would be voided for anything previously argued to have been founded on policy, so agreement cannot be presumed.

In other words: Guidelines are a possibility, but none of the old proposals represent agreed guidelines, and most of them aren't acceptable as guidelines exactly because they are instead just restatement of policy. Editors interested in guidelines need to clear away most or all of the old propositions that have been editted on-and-off the WikiProject page. —SlamDiego_←T 22:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, you're not addressing the points made:

• The dispute has concerned alleged restatement of existing policy.
• The actual policy cited by Vision Thing forbids restatements of policy.

No one here has claimed that guidelines that are not policy and not represented as policy are forbidden by the policy that Vision Thing cited. And it would seem an act of very bad faith if there is a reversal on the disputed propositions, admitting them not to be policy, in order to have them acceptable under the policy that Vision Thing has cited. —SlamDiego_←T 22:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. By moving forward and putting this issue behind us I suggest that the whole idea be dropped as not really having much of any bearing on anything, and mostly as kind of a control aspect (unwarranted control) regarding articles. It is being promoted by several mainstream advocates or writers (economists), that consider themselves experts in the field and desire to use information mostly from other experts in the field that publish information, that most likely is considered mainstream what ever that really is. I do believe this was a bad idea that has no resolution because it is opinion based and not fact based and the policy and guidelines already cover the thing in question.

Comparing the science of medicine and related publication about medicine is not connected to the subject either. Economics though maybe can be called a social science, is not a hard science... at all. Mostly it is a political manifestation which verges or is a social control construct... whether benignly or other.

The dispute has been over whether a class of “reliable” sources are to trump any and all other “reliable” sources. The answer is ..no, especially in regard to economics. The question and repeated re jiggering of this idea are not going anywhere. Suggestion to L.K. - Lets drop it. You or J.Q. are not going to be accorded the ability to remove information from articles by citing fringe theory or weight because in your opinions some creative or interesting things are not published in some class of publications. There is no real support for your suggestions, the existing guidelines and policies already cover r.s. etc. - And, no policy does not support that "academic or peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available". What does when available mean? Just kidding. Thats a rhetorical question. Repeating what V.T. said, We don't get to violate policy on the WikiProject page on the grounds that we think it ill-considered. If one doesn't want to follow policy, then one argues against it in a more general forum. part of quote from above. - skip sievert (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Skip, at least some of the editors here want guidelines for purposes other than having a weapon to use against views which differ from their PoV, and the presence of those editors should be acknowledged. Also, I'm not Vision Thing. —SlamDiego_←T 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if all that way overlong post I made was confusing. I quoted something from him and from you also. No weapons seem needed. No doubt all parties believe in their trying to improve things. Seems like the best improvement though is to follow the existing policy or guidelines again because of the creative margin of information presentation it affords. skip sievert (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy in writing policies and guidelines allows guidelines to cite policy and explain its applicability. The citations show that the guidelines defer to the policies. As far as I can see what is there is acceptable. Personally I would support trimming it so it directs people more to the relevant policies and just for those parts that are causing problems. This would allow for agreed consensus in the future on variations on that part, for instance in medicine they are very careful about making certain that citations are highly reliable. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What have been presented haven't been mere citations nor explanations of applicability. As I said above, “So far, the claim from defenders of the disputed policies and guidelines has been that they are simply a restatement of existing policy”. —SlamDiego_←T 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This all sort of seems to be an exercise in wikilawyering. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I canot speak to Vision Thing's motivations, but, as for my own, I'm frankly disappointed by the discovery of the point in question; it throws a wrench in my hope for a resolution of what I regard as a more important issue than just these particular policy proposals. In any case, a point never to forget about what may seem to be wikilawyering to you is that wikilawyers may be right; one doesn't get to wave-away policy simply on the grounds of wikilawyering. —SlamDiego_←T 23:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Uh. Ok. I'm just stating that this whole dispute is kind of pointless. Lecturing people about the distinction between policies and guidelines has some severe diminishing returns. Eventually you have to realize that folks are sometimes imprecise in their language and that demanding precision for the sake of precision impedes communication. You also back people into a wall. First we demand that no language on the econ guideline be derived from anything less than a previously agreed upon policy. Then you assert that interpretation of that policy is somehow forbidden and that we are restricted to some form of recitation. Then we have this whole rigmarole about whether or not redundancy is proscribed by the guidance on writing policies. This whole diversion doesn't really add to the discussion about whether or not some econ specific guidance should exist about sourcing and weight. If you don't think specific guidance is helpful or necessary, great. If you think specific guidance is good but the path we are taking to write it is bad, great. But I don't see the point of engaging in arcane discussions of policy vs. guideline prior to actually hammering out some issues. It's clear that if guidance on sourcing and weight for this project gets approved that it will be a guideline. It's likewise clear that there are no rules about constituent bits in guidelines. We can link essays, mainspace articles, wikiprojects, policies, other guidelines, etc. If we want to link to fringe, then we can. Whether or not is is appropriate to do so is a question worth considering. But demanding that links to fringe be expunged because it is merely a guideline is a little ludicrous.
    • And I'm sorry you are disappointed. But it just seems that the bulk of the activity in the past 48 hours on this page has been your demanding that other people recognize how precise and correct you are. I'm getting a little frustrated with it and I'm on the edge of just unwatching the project page until this whole dispute blows over. Protonk (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Y'know, if everybody's motives in writing guidelines or policies or whatever were merely to arrive at a common expression for common beliefs, then it might be perfectly fine to be relaxed about language on the way to a solution. But this was begun and has never ceased to be about a conflict amongst editors whose ideas about how articles should be written are pretty fundamentally different. And we shouldn't cobble together a majority (or the illusion of a majority) to impose a solution on the other parties by fudged distinctions and interpretations.
      • What I demanded was that if something was to be justified as simply policy, then it better indeed be simply policy. From the outset, I allowed for the possibility of other sorts of justifications, only to have that allowance treated as some sort of red herring, because (supposedly) the justification was just simple policy.
      • I've said nothing about citation or link to WP:FRINGE as guideline; I've said that it cannot be cited as policy, because it absolutely isn't. I've said nothing about linking to any other guidelines as guidelines.
      • For my part, I wonder about the apparent addiction of some parties to misrepresentations of what I've said, so that they keep beating at it until the horse is dead. Your complaint that I don't just let the horse run over me seems bizarre. —SlamDiego_←T 00:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not able to get any specific information from what you just said. Please be more succinct and to the point. Examples or specifics would be good. As far as I can see this section is about how much the guidelines can say about policy. A guideline should be fairly specific without too much waffle. It is allowed to give guidance on policy. You are allowed to do some interpretation for a specific project. If you don't write a guideline then the straightforward policies as written stand. If there is a dispute then arbitration might decide an editor is a POV pusher or disruptive editor if they continue to try to change an article against straightforward policy. Writing a guideline allow you to vary that a bit. In medicine a much higher weighting is given to peer reviewed articles. In mathematics articles the main thing to check for is notability. Biographical articles for living people have their own top level policies because the implications of what they say are so important and they occur in so many different subject areas. It sounds to me like what the current guideline is saying is that standard weighting of peer reviewed and academic articles is to be followed. It looks to me like some people want something more like as in mathematics. Personally I would not have thought the mathematics model was good for economics, it doesn't matter too much how one checks the maths in a maths article but in economics you really do need secondary sources to compare and evaluate ideas against each other. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What I just said was in reply to the immediately prior comments by Protonk, directed at him. The content that you demand of it is irrelevant to that purpose. It is sufficiently succinct for its intended purpose (and probably would be more gravely misinterpretted if made more succinct).

The fact that WP:PG says more than just what Vision Thing notes doesn't somehow negate what he notes: Policy forbids simply restating policy in other policies and in guidelines. The controverted declarations that editors have sought to place on the WikiProject page had (at least until Vision Thing's comment) been defended as simply restating policy; and, indeed, at least some of them plainly are just such restatements (which is why, before being made aware of the policy cited by Vision Thing, I thought them innocuous); so they run afoul of the prohibition. What would not violate the prohibition would be explanations of peculiar application of policy to the subject of economics. (Nor would simply linking to policy, but many of us see that as offering very little value-added.) Further, so long as they were not misrepresented as policy and had consensus support, the project might have various guidelines on such things as the rôle of history of thought in articles on economic concepts. —SlamDiego_←T 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best if someone would create a page called Proposed guideline for WikiProject Economics in his/her user space and once that guideline is supported by a high level of consensus among members of this project to include it here. -- Vision Thing -- 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. An explanation of a policy as it applies to economics is fine if there is a general problem with editors having their own interpretations. It doesn't have to be a peculiar application except in an old sense of that it is written for the particular project. A straightforward application is perfectly okay even if it does sound rather like restating policy. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting different versions on the project page is okay too by me. Hopefully after this is over someone can write an article on the 1970 Bank strike in Ireland as I'd like to know why my family has had to be put in hock to the nth generation by the banks being bailed out. As to that I see very little in the way of academic scholarship, so I'll be interested to see how these guidelines apply. At least there's plenty written about the great depression which seems to be what sparked the row in the first place. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We can start the guidelines right here as a Wikiproject sub-page as an essay. I've just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight. Please feel free to add, remove and edit as you all see fit. I expect there to be much fighting over this in the future. Frankly, I'm in the middle of sending out a paper for review right now and won't be participating. However, from the whole voluminous discussion above, there is enough consensus now for Protonk's wording about weight and policy on our home page to stand. I feel pretty strongly about that. Guidelines like those must exist on the main page, we as a Wikiproject must put our foot down and say that Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and undue weight apply to economics articles – no ifs, ands or buts. LK (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a basic premise that you have not been including. That is that mainstream according to youself or who ever is in and of itself not weighty. Things that are reliably sourced, is the criteria. How is it that you expect there to be much fighting over this in the future? A sign of multiple people disagreeing with your basic premise?

No... there is not enough consensus, or really any beyond yourself and maybe J.Q., for what you are referring to as Protonks' wording about weight and policy on the project page to stand as an addition. writing policies and guidelines. It states that "Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders." - skip sievert (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is permitted to give guidance on reliable sources and the weight to be given to different sources. It was my impression you believed more weight should be given to economics as it is practiced as you though academic sources did not cover this with the weight due in the real world. You'll find that difficult without gathering consensus agreement to something like this as the standard wikipedia policy does not agree with you on a straightforward reading. Is this what you want? Dmcq (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the straightforward reading? There is little to support the suggestion that weight be based a subset of reliable sources. These are two different policies. RS is for sourcing content, and we prefer higher quality reliable sources to lower quality ones if we have the choice for sourcing a particular statement. Weight is based on the prevalence among reliable sources. Once you create an environment where we now get to debate the quality of a reliable source for determining the weight of neutral point of view, you're begging for abuse and more dispute. You won't be solving a problem, you'll be creating a larger one. Morphh ^(talk) 18:25, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

The policy is "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

Highly valued means greater weight. Also this is what wikipedia policy says is reliable rather than a matter of opinion. It is like verifiability. In maths people can verify a formula using Mathematica but wikipedia verifiability means the formula appears in a reliable source as defined in the policy. Just saying a formula can be verified by hand does not count as verifiability. The 'usually' is a get out that can be exploited by consensus agreement. Without consensus agreement either in the guidelines or in the discussion about an article the usually has very little to no force. The economics article says economics is a social science and that counts as a science. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Highly valued means greater weight." - No it doesn't. WP:RS does not define weight, WP:WEIGHT defines weight. Morphh ^(talk) 23:23, 01 October 2009 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes we agree! "reliable sources", not "the most" reliable sources, not academic and peer review sources - reliable sources, meaning ALL reliable sources define in WP:RS, not some sub-group of RS. You said that the higher value means greater weight. There is no higher value defined in weight, it is either reliable or not. If it's not reliable we shouldn't use it as a source. We consider a viewpoints prevalence in reliable sources, ALL reliable sources. The value of a source is not used for weight, it's used to support the statement and we should use the most reliable sources to support a statement (since many sources may say the same thing), but the weight is determined by it's prevalence in all reliable sources, not some debatable measure of which is the "most" reliable. That's a sure way of subverting the NPOV policy by redefining what reliable sources are acceptable for determining weight. Morphh ^(talk) 0:08, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the crux of the argument, reliable sources are not defined by how mainstream something is (an iffy idea) or where or who is publishing it as long as it is a reliable source...not the most reliable sources. And that means all reliable sources, not a preferred version by L.K. or any-ones personal view version of reliable sources... because, mainstream is in and of itself not weighty. Is economics a science?, no, social science?... sort of. It uses science to collate data. Data does not have to make sense to form patterns that can be interpreted within an if you believe the premise, the rest is easy mode. Lots of things do that. skip sievert (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The debate over whether economics is a science is somewhat irrelevant here, as the sentence being misinterpreted is not “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas such as history, medicine and science.” Rather, it is “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.” so that “such as history, medicine and science” simply helps to identify “areas where they are available”. On the one hand, academic and peer-reviewed publications are plainly available in economics. On the other hand, as I have noted before, there is a difference between this policy and “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in each areas where they are available.” (Considering what flies in some areas, such a policy would commit us to howling madness.) And Morphh's point (that the weighting policy says nothing about giving more weight to academic and peer-reviewed publications) is well taken. —SlamDiego_←T 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, energy economics is science for sure because it measures something real, and not abstracted concepts like this and can explain itself pretty well in relation to technology, energy conversion like this. The current system is designed to expand (growth in economic terms). When it cannot, it collapses. Keynes is based on growing. That is a dead end as resources are destroyed. This was only a transient, and probably now over experience since W.W.2. till it stopped working now. I agree also with Morph that... And Morphh's point (that the weighting policy says nothing about giving more weight to academic and peer-reviewed publications) is well taken. I also agree with Alfred Eichner that regular economics is not yet a science, and suspect it will never be. - skip sievert (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, Skip, the debate over whether economics is a science has little bearing here. If you wish to argue it, it would best taken elsewhere. I won't do as others and claim that participants in this WikiProject ipso facto must or should believe that economics is a science. I'm just telling you to stick to what has bearing on the questions here. The policy says “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available”. That includes areas other than science, and other than the examples listed; it includes economics, whether it's a science or not. It includes all sorts of highly politicized academic disciplines, whose mainstream causes any scientist to laugh, groan, or cry. It isn't that such publications are usually the most reliable in each discipline; policy never made such a wack claim. —SlamDiego_←T 04:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

utilitarian section break

(outdent) Dmcq, Morph, SD, I think our viewpoints are not that dissimilar. Morph, SD, I think your position are that apart from academic publications, other reliable sources should also carry weight. I don't disagree with this. Neither Dmcq nor myself think that ONLY academic publications should be used when considering weight, we just think that they should carry more weight. How much more weight is not really quantifiable, and I'll as soon not have that discussion. I'll be satisfied with the outcome of this conversation, if something about weight is put on the main page, and if Skip would just stop reverting guidelines on the main page. LK (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent edit attributed weight for “Core Economics articles” only to academic and peer-reviewed journals, and your summary declared that this were consensus; it isn't. I have reverted that edit.

In theory we could have guidelines that said “something” about weight. When I was more hopeful, I proposed the beginnings of such guidelines. I have little hope now, because of the incessant attempt to shape ostensible statements of policy or guidelines for other purposes.

There are other, more hopeful editors here who want guidelines that, amongst other things, indeed say “something” about weight. Why don't you step away from this for a while, encourage those editors to start fresh on another page? (Perhaps in User space.) Some of them are d_mn'd smart. When they think that they have something, they can come back here and say “Hey take a look!” If their guidelines don't say “something” about weight (and so forth), then you can raise your concerns. —SlamDiego_←T 08:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As to giving equal weight to all reliable sources WP:WEIGHT says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". If you want to give more weight to bits that aren't in academic studies you really do need a guideline to give a consensus on that. Most valued really does imply more weight. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SD, easy to keep on attacking other people. Can we see a proposed guideline from you please. I want to see something on the main page before walking away from this. LK (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• No one here is your enemy L.K. - There is simply a difference as to what your proposal is and how some others view it, in relation to it being a good idea or not. Its that simple. As mentioned earlier as a self identified expert editor you may come under closer scrutiny than others. - skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the content on the project page. Don't really agree with restating policy here, but I think it is better than it was and perhaps will help the edit warring. Here is the diff.Morphh ^(talk) 13:32, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that. But I foresee that other editors will not be. I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I don't see how they'ld be happy with anything except an outright rescindment of Wikipedia policies when applied to economics. LK (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so much. The policy and guidelines currently are pretty clever and also provide wiggle room, but also accountability. When in doubt Wikipedia:Be bold - skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip, so is that a thumbs down for the rewrite, or are you responding to something LK wrote? Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:57, 02 October 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up on the rewrite you did on the project page ^ :) cause it is just an affirmation of the policy and guidelines. - skip sievert (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo, as already noted, I made constructive suggestions about a year ago. Other editors have cited them during this most recent discussion, and I've told them that I don't object to those suggestions being used as a starting point. You need to stop trying to steer the generation of guidelines, as you have been unable to resist inserting principles that you claim to be supported by policy and/or by consensus but that have the support of neither. —SlamDiego_←T 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about concentrating on just the bit that's causing problems? I think that's weight as it applies to different theories in an article. Perhaps something like "The importance of economic theories in actual practice may not be reflected in peer reviewed studies. Other reliable sources like reputable magazines should also be used in assessing the relative weight to be given, see WP:WEIGHT" Dmcq (talk)

I don't see a problem with the thrust of that assertion. —SlamDiego_←T 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion has run its course here. Thrusting assertions or trying to redefine basic Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines caused problems from the beginning connected to steering the generation of guidelines, and attempts of inserting principles that were claimed to be supported by policy or consensus on the project page, but, have the support of neither. skip sievert (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "The importance of economic theories in actual practice may not be adequately reflected in peer reviewed studies." Also, I would like to see something about the Handbooks in Economics series in there. In Economics, the handbook articles are written by the most respected in a field, to summarize the literature of a field; they are widely accepted as the consensus in the field. LK (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In Economics, the handbook articles are written by the most respected in a field, to summarize the literature of a field; they are widely accepted as the consensus in the field. end quote L.K. - Back to the same problem... Mainstream or interpretation of that does not carry weight, only reliable sources do. A handbook for what? Is that a textbook? Are we back to square one now again? Most respected? There are many people that would disagree I am sure about certain types of writers in a field being most respected. Some Corporate company decides who the writer is no doubt or a mainstream University economics department? skip sievert (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

LK, what if we referenced our List of important publications in economics as examples? This article includes the Handbooks in Economics series you mentioned. Something like "For verifiability in referencing content, academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available. The list of important publications in economics contains examples of such high valued references." Morphh ^(talk) 4:03, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

I support that. It gives editors something they can directly use. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Once we remove the passage about some publications usually being the most reliable from the original context in which it was presented by the policy statement, and make it a declaration about subfields of economics, it needs justification (which I don't think is possible). I have no doubt that we can have clashes amongst “reliable” sources, and at times will have to resolve these; but this guideline simply looks like an article of faith. We cannot properly make it a basis for objecting to edits.

(I have no objection to suggesting the Handbook as a “reliable” source and as one guide to “reliable” sources, but I think that Morphh's suggestion of doing so by way of pointing to “List of important publications in economics” is the best way of doing that.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm wary of the suggestion to use the List of important publications in economics as a guideline, simply because that article itself is poorly maintained and prone to undue weight. Suggesting people look there for a guide to good sources will up the motivation to put favorite sources in that article. I suppose any resulting conflict might improve the article, but... CRETOG8(t/c) 07:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cretog8 and S.D.- Making special consideration for sources beyond reliable sources is not suggested for reasons of n.p.o.v. - skip sievert (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer mentioning the handbooks directly (as IMO they usually give a very good reliable summing up of the literature in a field), but I have no objection to pointing at the list of important publications as well. However, as has been pointed out, that list is currently in pretty bad shape. If the guidelines point at the list without mentioning the handbooks, I guess I'll head over there and make sure the handbooks are included in the fields where they are available. For purely informational purposes, can I ask if any academic here disagrees with the statement that articles in the Handbooks in Economics series usually give a pretty reliable summing up of the academic literature in a field? LK (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

LK, I can't say I disagree, but I'm not familiar with the series, so I can't endorse them either. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not strongly opposed to mentioning the Handbook more directly, and Cretog8 makes a good point about the maintenance of “List of important publications in economics”. Adding to that point, I'd say that if a list is going to become a battleground, then I'd rather that it be one not in article space. If that article can be properly maintained, then I'd prefer an link to it, but perhaps the “if” is too big. —SlamDiego_←T 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If a list is going to become a battleground, then I'd rather that it be one not in article space. If that article can be properly maintained, then I'd prefer an link to it, but perhaps the “if” is too big and as with some other material being edited by L.K. currently, I would say that L.K. is not going to back off from grinding of this issue/role, about what is notable/weighty or not and it appears that he started another page in that regard also here, and has adopted this page as a sort of essay blog/forum for his views as seen here. He is not interested in constructive editing or cooperative editing on the page either, if this is any indication. It could be that we have an example of a Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing way of approach by L.K. and that will defy normal ways of containing or stopping. Sadly. Combine that with personal attacks on others that have differences of opinion like here and, you wind up with an expert that has very little regard for others or policy or guidelines, but lots of regard for their own judgment of what is best. skip sievert (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

SD, from what you say, can I take it that you would not object if the handbooks are mentioned as a useful and reliable reference source for the mainstream academic viewpoint? I'ld like to ask if there's anyone else who's familiar with them and who'll endorse them as such? If not I'll drop the request. LK (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, more accurately, I would not object to their mention as useful “reliable” sources. The whole issue of mainstreams is only significant to the extent that we are telling the reader that such-and-such is a mainstream. And whether these handbooks, over-all, capture a mainstream, I simply don't know. (As a “real-life” economist, I am big on primary sources and on truth, and I am highly specialized.) —SlamDiego_←T 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I should point out though I guess you probably already know that secondary sources are generally preferred in WIkipedia. WP:RS gives some reasons for this. Also the standard is verifiability not truth. Dmcq (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's rather like pointing me to WP:OR because my work as a “real-life” economist involves original research. I was parenthetically explaining why I'm not positioned to say whether these Handbooks could be said to capture mainstreams of economic thought; I don't use them in “real-life”. Perhaps in your “real-life” you do nothing but regurgitate, or perhaps you were merely posturing. —SlamDiego_←T 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Regurgitation with some rewording is basically what people are suppose to do on wikipedia. I try to follow standards. Even in a maths article on wikipedia sticking in one's own logic would be considered as WP:OR. Dmcq (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is organized regurgitation. But you seemed to be confused by the fact that it's not what I do in “real life”, unless your previous comment was just grasping for a chance to posture. —SlamDiego_←T 07:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A little logic

If, at the University of Pawtucket, the student assembly declares

The university president knows most students.

that doesn't imply

The university president knows most economics majors.

When policy declares

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

that doesn't imply

In economics, for verifiability in referencing content, academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available.

Enough. —SlamDiego_←T 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article WP:Verifiability is Wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines it must not be rephrased. You can interpret it in guideline pages for the project but taking a statement out of a policy document verbatim and then repeating it with a part missing is extremely wrong. What is there is not a matter of opinion, it is policy. Whether people believe peer reviewed articles are most reliable or not is immaterial. I will be reverting that change again. If the sentence from the policy is mangled again I will be asking for arbitration. Dmcq (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an interpretation of policy as placed utterly out of context on the WikiProject page, and if my exerpting were rephrasing (arguably true), then so would be the form that you're restoring (it's not the whole sentence, and adds a preface). So I'll remove the sentence altogether. (I had no direct interest in what remained; I was simply seeking to leave what was not a misrepresentation of policy.)

By the way, discussion here not only already explained what was wrong with that passage, but proper dispute resolution process. Please familiarize yourself with that process. A request for Arbitration would be rejected at this stage. —SlamDiego_←T 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with what was said above. And I repeat, it is not a matter of opinion or truth, it is a matter of policy. The touchstone of Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. There is quite a lot of wriggle room in the policies without going around trying to rewrite them. The 'usually' for instance. If you want to show that economics is an exception to the general rule that should be explicitly documented, the reasons given and clear guidelines given, not just remove the sentence. Without clear consensus guidelines the policy holds verbatim and such documents if available should be considered as the most reliable in an article unless there good defensible reasons otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the logical point above holds regardless of whether one is talking about truth or verifiability or charm or any other attribute. We could change the above analogy to “The university president sexually harasses most students” and the logic would still hold. There is no policy claiming that in each area where there are academic and peer-reviewed publications are available these are usually the most “reliable”. Absenting demonstration that such publications are usually the most reliable in economics, there is no need for proof that they are not to block an unverified claim that they are. —SlamDiego_←T 22:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Logic is irrelevant. It is wikipedia policy. It doesn't have to be logical. If the university president is convicted of sexual harassment then in law he/she is guilty irrespective of new evidence showing innocence. It is only after the new evidence is accepted in court that they can be declared legally innocent. Wikipedia policy is law as far as wikipedia is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Logic is hardly irrelevant, and here its immediate relevance is in determining whether a statement about what usually obtains in fields where such publications are available implies a claim about what must then obtain in each area where they are available.

Logically, what is true of most elements of a set need not be true of most elements of each subset of the original set. It's that simple.

Showing that the university president is guilty of sexually harassing some or most students does not demonstrate him guilty of sexually harassing the economics majors, and he'd simply not be convicted of such a specific offense merely for not having proof-of-innocence in that case. —SlamDiego_←T 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want something different please just write a good guideline and try and get a consensus rather than doing unproductive wikilawyering. Dmcq (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointing to the active logical absurdity of the misrepresentation isn't wikilawyering. As to offering guidelines myself: I put an alternate guideline in place of the one to which I objected; you raised an objection for which a case could be made (albeït that the same objection could be raised against the guideline that you restored), so I replaced the guideline with one telling editors to familiarize themselves with the relevant policy. (And, again, I offered constructive sugegstions for guidelines a year ago.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Outdent

You seem to be objecting to the bit in WP:Verifiability 'and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available' saying it does not apply to economics. I don't know if you really do object to that but that is my impression. Pointing people at the general policy won't get your point of view accepted. And however logical you feel your arguments about the precise wording and syntax of the policy are your logic isn't going to be very convincing to a lot of people. How about concentrating on positive things for a guideline rather than argue about policy? Something like 'Because of x,y and z peer reviewed and academic sources are not usually the most reliable sources in economics even when available and one should do a, b or c." I can't see a reason to object to the policy on that phrase but perhaps you could fill in or modify something like that. Personally I'd have thought a statement on weight would be better. Dmcq (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been very clear about exactly to what I'm really objecting. How about being logical and not misrepresenting policy no matter what you fear I might really be seeking?

No one here is required to show either that in economics some “reliable sources” are usually not the most reliable or that in economics these are not usually the most reliable . The claim that in economics they are usually the most reliable is just an article of faith for some, and that's not good enough to make the claim, as ostensible policy nor as a guideline. Any conflicts between “reliable” sources will have to be resolved on some better basis than merely falling in-or-out of the class of academic and peer-reviewed literature. —SlamDiego_←T 00:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to SlamDiego for outrageous patience and overt intellectual clarity. The claim that in economics they are usually the most reliable is just an article of faith for some, and that's not good enough to make the claim, as ostensible policy nor as a guideline. end S.D.-. Now, defending economics, mainstream or other, is like defending Christianity or Judaism or what ever religion. Defending abstract concepts. Opinions. Opinions are never facts. Opinions are always stuck with not being factual. Yes, there are true believers in various aspects of economics... however, none of them carry any weight because religion/economics is based mostly on bull*hit of various types and kinds designed to influence people usually for socio economic/political reasons... or at least originally, that is what it was designed to do. To say that the Catholics are weightier than the Lutherans, or that the Catholics and Lutherans made up the majority of the Nazis... gets strange after a while and pointless, and carries no weight beyond the strange. In other words despite the longing of some mainstream self identified expert economists such as Lawrence Khoo who desired to straight jacket articles with mainstream being a goal or standard... mainstream is not the truth, and the truth changes. In the words of one Franz Kafka... truth has a lively changing face. So. This thing, started out by L.K. slamming the Austrian economics people. Mostly Visionthing, who it seems differs as to pov with L.K. - The difference as I see it is that Visionthing is willing to include everything, and L.K. is not willing to include everything, because his criteria of everything does not include things other than Keynes... in the main. skip sievert (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SD, Policy is policy, and that should be enough. However, for your example, if a university president has met most of the students at a university, when I talk to a group of economics students, I can safely assume that the university president has met most of them, unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. Unless there is an exception written into a policy, the assumption should be that it includes all cases. The burden of proof is on the person who argues otherwise. Otherwise, policy would have to be extremely verbose, qualifying every 'usually' with "usually in accounting, usually in biology, usually in chess articles, etc." LK (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, policy is policy; and policy is not what you have pretended it to be. And, no, you should (and presumably do) know probability theory better that. You cannot go from a President having met 51% of the student body to there being a 100% chance that he has met 51% of a random multi-person sample. And of course, samples selected by major are no longer random. The burden of proof is on whomever would make the positive claim that academic and peer-reviewed journals are usually the most reliable sources in economics. The closest thing so far to a proof offered here is just that it's widely believed amongst academic economists.

And you're not going to be able to use a vote (implicit or otherwise). At the end of a dispute resolution process, you would be told not to attempt to extend policy. —SlamDiego_←T 03:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words...

• When in doubt take a look here at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for more information and suggested approaches. skip sievert (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Note: Mediation will only proceed if all named parties agree to mediation within 7 days.

Unfortunately, as I earlier predicted, a vocal minority has not allowed Morphh's version of the guidelines to stand. Morphh's version is already a toned down version of Protonk's version of guidelines, which several economists have already previously approved (see discussion above). I am now very pessimistic about a resolution without outside intervention, because although previously all involved had earlier approved of Morphh's version, edit warring has now erupted between those who want to keep it as is, and those who want to pare it down even further. I now ask if the people involved are willing to submit to formal mediation? I have filed a request for formal mediation at: WP:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines

Please note there if you agree or disagree to mediation. I have listed as involved parties all who have participated in the discussion about the guidelines. Please add your name if you feel I missed your name and that you are an involved party; please remove your name if you believe you are uninvolved. LK (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And now I hope for a Mediator who will keep discussion well organized.

Persons who do not wish to be involved in the Mediation because they have withdrawn from the disputes themselves should plainly indicate as much, so that the Mediation is not mistakenly rejected on a false impression that a disputant declines Mediation. —SlamDiego_←T 07:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with mediation and am sorry if my contribution has only contributed to the length of the dispute rather than leading to some sort of successful conclusion. Dmcq (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate agreement (or decline) at the Mediation request. —SlamDiego_←T 08:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have. Probably a good idea to point out that all involved need to sign for mediation to proceed. Dmcq (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote to clarify. LK (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a link to the mediation page to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page as well as there seems to be some dispute about the interpretation of what's on that page. Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If the Mediation draws comments from people who are not in fact disputants, that will be disruptive to any process of reaching agreement. —SlamDiego_←T 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware a note should be stuck on a policy talk page as part of the dispute resolution before or at this stage. Sorry if that causes extra messing around but that is my reading of how it is supposed to work. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to L.K. - Unfortunately, as I earlier predicted, a vocal minority has not allowed Morphh's version of the guidelines to stand. Morphh's version is already a toned down version of Protonk's version of guidelines, which several economists have already previously approved (see discussion above). end quote, L.K. - There is no Morph's version of the guidelines. There were several editors futsing with different approaches to take as to consensus of information. There is no vocal minority either. There were people attempting to illustrate aspects of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

Also Morphh's version is already a toned down version of Protonk's version of guidelines, which several economists have already previously approved (see discussion above). end quote, L.K. - Several economists have previously approved??. 'Experts do not have any other privileges in resolving edit conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. In short, "Because I say so" is never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts, nor is there any mechanism to do so. Ideally, if not always in practice, it is the quality of the edits that counts', from here - skip sievert (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Peripheral or pseudoscience

I see yet another edit war developing on the project page. Be nice to wait till mediation squared some ideas on policy. I'd suggest fringe myself but people seem to be very worried about using that term. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped that Morphh's version would stand, but personally I'm not too concerned. We are all extremely familiar with all the policies and guidelines by now. Hopefully mediation will lead to some form of resolution. LK (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I'm too keen on the pseudoscience word. It sounds very perjorative in economics. The guidelines are supposed to give specific guidance for the project rather than just repeat snippets of policy. Dmcq (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not or should not. Policy and guidelines are not specific to one thing, but pretty much cover all of Wikipedia with the same aspects Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, other than quoting those, making new approaches to interpretations of what is good and bad as to mainstream or reliable sources brings a lot of baggage as to possibly interring with neutral point of view... if some supposed good thing is endorsed wrongly by a clique thinking they might be improving things with their intentions. skip sievert (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saying you agree? How is it that you agree? You think we should rewrite policy or guidelines for the project page? That will probably not fly and what this whole thing is actually about above. You think we should make special weight for certain types of sources beyond what the policy/guidelines say? Do you like the mainstream as weighty idea also? skip sievert (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably would be better to call it something like recommendations rather than guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've called it advice which is a bit shorter. I'm not sure we'd ever have enough for a proper wikipedia guideline or even if it would be necessary. A consensus on best practice within the project is all that's needed. Must admit I don't see the individual words often where others seem to imbue them with great meaning. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but... A consensus on best practice within the project is all that's needed. Not really, if that means a vote. A special interest group/groups could then control articles, and a special interest group whether of one or a hundred has no special power as to editing Wikipedia. Other wise articles could not be protected from opinions of those groups. Opinions are never facts. Therefore voting is not consensus. Policy and guidelines seems to understand that... I think. So, advice as to checking this seems to be going around in a circle that leads back to policy and guidelines. skip sievert (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was talking about votes, I believe the word was consensus. The project can enforce some control by force of numbers that agree to a standard but if the control is unreasonable in any way there's lots of remedies. It would simply be a way for wikiproject economics editors to get on with editing economics articles to some sort of agreed standard and avoid repeating arguments again and again, and it would be a quick way of indicating to new editors what the general consensus here is without having to go through long arguments on the talk page of individual articles. People are perfectly entitled to ignore advice if they prefer to get into long discussions about policy and guidelines and interpretations. And if there is no consensus within the project on how best to achieve good economics articles, well then you've seen the outcome. Dmcq (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way it is perfectly reasonable for the project to try and change a consensus agreeement like that into an official wikipedia guideline if they want to. For instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions shows a wikipedia guideline looked after by a project. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Since everyone has agreed to mediation, it is probably better to wait for the discussion there. If anyone has an objection to edits made to the article it is best to flag it for now. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Since mediation is on hold, I am reinstating the version that was previously agreed to by all parties. The current version is objected to by a majority of Wikiproject members. LK (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Household income in the United States GAR notice

Household income in the United States 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.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing article links on article

Recently an editor User:Lawrencekhoo removed an article link to information in a section and gave not so good a reason on the main Economics article. This is a pattern of one editor that has a certain view of weight and mainstream, in economics articles in my opinion. Maintaining a neutral pov is essential for subjects and this material has been stable, and that is meant in a positive way for some time and it was directly connected to the information below it. It is also a very mainstream concept of using energy in economics as a quantifier. I hope people understand that my purpose in discussing this is not to stir stuff, but that this has become a real issue in regard to a small group of editors identifying themselves sometimes as experts on Wikipedia.

I am thinking if this type of editing continues by this one editor, that editor could be topic banned on economics articles, as having difficulty in my opinion in evaluating weight which is misconstrued with fringe and giving a false weight to mainstream also which creates a sort of conflict of interest and destroys neutral presentation. Since this is a pattern in my opinion I bring it up here. Here is the edit with the information taken out, which has been put back in again in the next edit here Thanks. - I do believe there is a problem with a small group of expert editors currently on Wikipedia that see themselves it seems like defenders of mainstream if that is the right phrase. That is not good.

It is noted that User:Cretog8 also is tandem editing in that regard with L.K. and that is a pattern on a series of articles as to tandem reverting for mainstream, or their views as to articles... again this is just my opinion, but this is the way it seems, for instance here where Cretog8 immediately reverted an edit. I also note that Cretog8 made an extreme personal attack recently on an editor on an economics related article, and I was a little surprised that he was not blocked from editing because of that extreme personal attack here - skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip's right that the link to thermoeconomics probably shouldn't have been removed from the "Main articles" list because it is discussed in that section. Sorry about that. I don't know that it should be discussed in that section, and discuss that at the article's talk page. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have though a link from the Econophysics article was about the right weight. Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats a different subject (econophysics) and focus as to a different discipline... but, also directly related to economics issues especially currently as to present time. It also Econophysics article is important to have in that section. skip sievert (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well lets see if this mediation business can sort something out about due weight and fringe. Anyone know what's supposed to happen next or when on that? Dmcq (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A member of the Mediation Committee will accept the request, or it will be declined by the Committee. If a Mediator takes the rôle, he or she will establish some procedure for opening discussion, which it is to be hoped disputants will actually follow. —SlamDiego_←T 03:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that it can easily be established there is a 'serious, entrenched, or persistent dispute', if that fails. Dmcq (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ostrom and Williamson win Nobel economics

Huh, who woulda thunk it. I'm happy to note that we actually had articles on them (Oliver E. Williamson, Elinor Ostrom) before tonite. LK (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of what you are happy or unhappy about here?, and a discussion page is not a blog L.K. - It is noted also that Ostroms work deals with the environment in a very big way. I also want to note that environmental articles are closely related to economics, for a lot of reasons these days, and L.K. you reverting the Sustainability article to a non neutral presentation of an entrenched editing team there, that has pretty horrible ownership issues and edits in a conflict of interest to a political pov, in tandem. You joined their tandem for some reason and an edit summary of consensus does not wash. Removing the tag was a bad idea also because the page is under disagreement. I find that disruptive. Making the article go to a mainstream pov of a political persuasion I find breaking with normal policy and guidelines of editing an article. I hope others go to the page and explore what is going on there.

Environment is a topic here now exactly also as to economics, as said environmental and ecological economics and a host of others of those types of disciplines, now overlay economics and the environment and sustainability issues altogether. I would like to encourage other editors to come to the Sustainability page which does indeed deal with economic issues, (lots of them), and give the page and discussion area a good look, and if desired... this article needs neutral point of view editing, and not stirring of the animosity pot and stirring of personality issues... contribute. It needs more eyes to critically look at it and interact with it for n.p.o.v. - skip sievert (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion page behavior

I'm starting this as a within-wikiproject discussion although I suspect it should at some point become a WP:RFC. I'm very unclear on which way to handle this, but it's driving me a bit batty (as evidenced by my own recent abusive talk page post). I need other input on this. It appears to me that the behavior is sustained and egregious.

I am not speaking (at this point) about actual article editing, that's a different issue. As an example of skipsievert's talk page behavior, I'll point just above. LK posted a very brief note, WP-specific noting that we already had articles on the new prize winners. This was a useful thing for me, as it facilitated me adding Ostrom's article to the Wikiproject. Skip also has edited both articles, though perhaps he came at them by a different route.

In any case, after LK briefly pointed this out, Skip:

1. strongly implied that LK was wrong to post the message
2. got into the connection of environment and economics
3. attacked LK for his editing on the Sustainability article as POV and "in tandem"
4. hit on the mainstream issue, "a mainstream pov of a political persuasion "
5. recruited editors here to go look at the page and get involved in editing-I have had experience in the past where I followed Skip's suggestion to visit a page, saw something which I felt needed fixing, and was then accused by Skip of "wikistalking".

I see this as a characteristic post for Skip. It opens by taking offense, and the nature of this ongoing taking-offense is to imply that certain editors must remain silent. It veers off-topic to attack on a different front as well. And it takes a talk-page topic (which is supposedly not a valid one) and uses it to re-open old wounds and shift discussion to something completely different. Similar posts have appeared to add greatly to the useless heat in the discussions on weight and guidelines.

I don't know what exactly should be done. I don't wish to banish critics from discussing economics articles, but this particular critic has been a disruptive influence. Being open to the possibility that heat has confused my own perception, I would appreciate if other editors let me know whether they think my perception here is off the mark. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not been involved in editing most of the pages where I infer most of the contention occurs, but at the least my impression is that Skip does not keep things appropriately compartmentalized, across pages, across sections, or within sections. —SlamDiego_←T 04:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nobel response just above is beyond the last straw for me. I don't think his contributions help this project at all. I'm going to stick more rigorously to a policy of not responding to any further comments from Skip. JQ (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Come back Gaddafi, all is forgiven", was my feeling. Wouldn't it be nice to do something constructive like putting an entry on the Portal:Business and economics about them getting the prize? Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment, Cretog do not start a discussion page section using an editors name in a negative way or in any way as that violates talk page guidelines, and using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious in connection with your opinion of their behavior as negative, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. I note that L.K. previously did that also on this page in regard to VisionThing, and that also was changed as a violation of editing standards read discussion pages criteria. Also it is noted that recently you have been on a minor crusade, possibly in regard to your opinion concerning me as a person here, which people can make of what they like... I guess.

Arguably as said economics and sustainability and environment and energy issues all cross over now and the latest prize in economics, points that out pretty clearly, I would think for the mainstream pov editors, I would have supposed. skip sievert (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading back because that's the only way for the section heading to be meaningful. Since I neither address you specifically in the heading, nor do I attack you in the heading, it doesn't go against the guideline you linked. As to the connections between economics, sustainability, and environment, that's a separate topic so I won't address it here. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of Skip's Nobel post and of other posts by him. Gruntler (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not address me specifically?? Skipsievert's talk page behavior end quote from heading..., am I to believe you on that above in your statement, or my own eyes...? Probably not a good idea Cretog8 to edit lamely this point, and probably not a good idea given your recent uncivil behavior, because that is a violation of talk page guidelines talk page guidelines and a blatant one.

Also your personal attack Cretog recently done, should illustrate something in the post above and Gruntler did you read that also ??, here. Noted also, I made lengthy edits on (Oliver E. Williamson, and Elinor Ostrom) which had no trouble being adopted immediately as they improved those and ref/cited information that made for good article construction. - skip sievert (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cretog, I do not wish to comment on whether use of an editor's name in a section heading violates policy, but it is better to be safe than sorry. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An ANI post or a RfC is the logical step forward. Is it within policy for members of a Wikiproject to declare an editor persona non grata for that Wikiproject's main and talk pages ? LK (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about a page ban, then the answer is clearly no; if you're talking about a powerless declaration that you'd just rather not see some editor, well, sure, under the right circumstances. But it would breach WP:CIVIL under many other circumstances. —SlamDiego_←T 08:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of people just agreeing to ignore him and maybe a revert on sight policy for edits that violate WP:CIVIL. But this whole thing should probably be pursued through normal channels, ie. a RfC or an ANI post. LK (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, attempting to create rival mechanisms would be a remarkably bad idea. —SlamDiego_←T 10:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask at ANI, or research, if any existing Arbitrations or commitments as a result of mediations cover the situation. RfCs to my mind are content focused. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

L.K. you are continuing an attack pattern above which amounts to Wikihounding. skip sievert (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm going to read it as borderline-inconclusive, and drop for the time being to avoid further upsetting the mediation. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If this type of canvassing and attack continues on the discussion page here by L.K. and editors that edit mainstream pov. I will be dropping out of the mediation concerning the actual recent issues, because I see unabated problems concerning attack blogging on this discussion page. skip sievert (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A short note on the Econ talk page that a project member is currently the subject of an ANI thread is not canvassing. This one note is limited, neutrally worded, nonpartisan and transparent, and hence is the exact opposite of canvassing. LK (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It does alert people that there might be an unwarranted attack on a constructive editor. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Masonomics

I am on the fence as to whether "Masonomics" – a branch/style of economic thought associated with the current faculty of George Mason University – merits an article, but I have collected some sources at User:Skomorokh/Masonomics if anyone decides to use them.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this term merits a separate article, though an article on George Mason University could have a section along these lines (econ doesn't appear to be mentioned at present). The sources are all blog posts, and the name is a jocular neologism riffing off the current popularity of Freakonomics. George Mason is notable for having a number of good free-market economists, but they don't really constitute a distinctive branch or style - for example, some identify as Austrians and some do not.JQ (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement on Economy of Italy

Two editors Theologiae (talk) and IP 93.45.107.206 (talk) are disagreeing about what should be included (or not) in Economy of Italy. I have tried to help, but due to the subject matter I am unsure how to proceed. An editor with a knowledge of economics would be very beneficial in helping to resolve this case. Marek.69 ^talk 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

rapid building of core articles

A bunch of core economics articles, such as Consumer theory, Indifference curve, Demand (economics), Law of demand, Inverse demand function, Supply (economics), Elasticity (economics), Supply and demand, Returns to scale, Perfect competition, Marginal cost, ... have been being rapidly updated recently. It appears to me (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that the editor doing most of the updating is pretty new to both economics and Wikipedia, and so is learning both as they go. On the whole, I think the articles are benefiting from the growth, but contributions from those of us with more experience in both could make the benefit greater.

I'm going to encourage the editor to join the Wikiproject and join the discussion here. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

everything in neoclassical microeconomics is, at best, unfounded

(I moved this to its own topic, since it didn't seem to relate closely to the section it was in) CRETOG8(t/c) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources (e.g., Lee & Keen 2004 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713794457 and Benicourt & Guerrien 2008 http://rrp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/317 ) argue that almost everything in neoclassical microeconomics is, at best, unfounded. Many pages in the economics section could have more sourced critical information. -- RLV 209.217.195.191 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of criticism of economics generally, and that's more an issue of weight than reliable sources. Sourced critical information is appropriate so long as it gets appropriate weight and doesn't obscure the main points of the article in question. A practical problem with criticism is that there's so much criticism from so many different sources that disagree with each other, that those criticisms will have to fight it out for space. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Second Cretog8. There are reliable sources for all academic discourses. It doesn't mean we should go around injecting a five paragraph critiques into every article, and if the critiques are significant enough as a literature, they probably need their own criticisms of article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo. We have a very healthy tradition both within and outside the mainstream of criticizing the mainstream assumptions. It would be good to have articles on those criticisms and literature. Appropriate short summaries and links should be included on the 'main' topic pages, but the main pages should mainly present the mainstream view and shouldn't become overwhelmed by discussion of criticisms. For instance, business cycle is borderline broken now, as more than half the page is about non-mainstream views. LK (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not restricting my comment to criticisms of assumptions. The mainstream has a history of suppressing dissent within the profession (e.g., Notre Dame, counting only some journals in the British Research Assessment Exercise, Rutgers, and Harvard at various times). I also think of how little change resulted from American Economics Associations panels on, e.g., graduate education or journal editing. If articles are edited in tune with the views that have grown over decades in such reliable sources as the Cambridge Journal of Economics or the Review of Political Economy and over generations of researchers, they would look a lot different than suggested. -- RLV 209.217.195.112 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, that's all true enough, but that's not in our opinion to judge as Wikipedia editors. We're just supposed to report what is currently in the most reliable sources, which traditionally in academia, are the peer-reviewed academic journals. Few, I think, reject that position, although, funnily enough, it's what the mediation proposed below is all about. LK (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

New Mediation

WP:RfM/WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been aborted by the departure of one of the listed disputants. I will file a new RfM, naming those whom I recognize as essential disputants and any other registered users who indicate here a desire to be included. If you believe that you are not an essential disputant, are concern that I would mistake you for one, and do not want to be part of the Mediation, then please let me know here that you should not be listed. (If I think that we can proceed usefully without your participation, then I won't list you.) —SlamDiego_←T 10:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting inclusion

1. SlamDiego_←T 11:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
2. JQ (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Morphh ^(talk) 15:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
6. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Explicitly requesting exclusion

I would be happy to abide by any successful mediation without my direct involvement. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments generally

Please see this diff for my feelings on new mediation. I feel I can participate in the new one, but that it will have much less force than the old one would have. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice: In discussion with Protonk, the Chairperson of the Mediation Committee has said that they would reject a Mediation of this matter if one of the disputants continued to participate in the dispute itself but would not participate in the Mediation. (This constraint was not in place when last I participated in a successful Mediation, and was not imposed by the lead Mediator in the recently aborted Mediation, but apparently it's imposed now.) Queried by me, at least one of the disputants has said that he would continue to participate in the dispute itself but not in a Mediation. —SlamDiego_←T 14:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So, this mediation effort probably won't be launched, but in case it is: I'd like to put in a plug for vaguer wording of what's to be mediated. We're looking for advice on material weight generally, and starting off with what appears to be yay or nay on specifics is less likely to get us there. probably moot anyway... CRETOG8(t/c) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

False edit summary for disruptive diff

Whatever else might be said for diff 320775008, its edit summary is blatantly false. Not only does that diff run-up against the passage of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines cited by Vision Thing, but the objection was raised that quoting that passage out-of-context implied a claim about the specific case of economics that isn't actually made by policy.

This is very much part of the issue which was supposed to be resolved by the Mediation originally requested by the editor responsible for this diff, so he knows better than to claim that all parties agreed to it. Further, a new Request is going to be filed, and he's said that he'd be willing to participate in a remounted Mediation. —SlamDiego_←T 12:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The above is a false accusation. To prove so, I will now revert to Morphh's edit. That version was agreed to on this very talk page. It stood for a while before more disruptive editing began again. Lets see how long it stands. LK (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a perfectly accurate accusation, and those who have participated in the disagreement are aware of those objections which I noted having been raised. As to this-or-that proposal by Morphh, while every one was surely made in good faith, some certainly didn't have universal agreement. I know that, for my part, I left the guidelines section alone when Mediation was requested, as Mediation was to address the dispute with more finality than some edit war. —SlamDiego_←T 13:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is not false as the edit returns Morphh's wording exactly. This is the version that everyone was happy with and that stood for a while before the minority group decided to pare it down some more. You raised your objection later, followed by several rounds of edit warring and mediation was initiated after that. LK (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. At 02:04 on 26 September, I challenged the claim that, in economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications were the most reliable sources. Morphh hadn't even submitted any proposals yet. The move to put guidelines on the page was an outgrowth and expression of your battles with Vision Thing and Skipsievert, who plainly wouldn't be agreeing to tools to be used against them. Skip quickly reverted your first statement of guidelines on the WikiProject page, and there was no rest for the section from then until the Request for Mediation. The idea that there was some halcyon period of guidelines and then some insurgents wandered-in to ruin it is ridiculous. —SlamDiego_←T 14:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The new edit summary, by vaguely claiming that the wording was agreed upon “by editors”, without saying whether it were some or all, at least manages to avoid blatant falsehood. It's still disruptive, but, again, there's going to be a new RfM about the matter. —SlamDiego_←T 14:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Slam, Wikipedia WP:V states that academic and peer-review publications are the most reliable, along with several other publications. To quote Verifiability "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used." So while I agree with your statement that this should not be the measure for weight, I disagree with your argument that academic publications are not some of the most reliable sources for verifiability. This is not a measure to be determined by the economics community - it has been determined as policy by Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Morphh, as I've repeatedly noted, there's a difference between what is usual in a set, id est what obtains amongst most members of that set, and what is usual in each of its subsets. I'm not challenging policy; I'm challenging the attempt to derive the claim about a particular field from a claim about a larger set. In any case, it was generally recognized that debate on this page didn't get to resolution, and you're welcome to sign-up for the remounted Request for Mediation. —SlamDiego_←T 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If we do a remounted request, I'd participate. Not sure where the sign up is... either way though. Morphh ^(talk) 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now, it's just one section up. I'm using a sign-up so that no one who doesn't need to be in the Mediation is put in the awkward position of having to agree or kill the thing. —SlamDiego_←T 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, the way that I read it, it seemed like a list for those that did not want to be part of the Mediation. Morphh ^(talk) 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now added some headers, to avoid any recurrence of that. —SlamDiego_←T 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - I agree that the editing summary connected with diff 320775008 has no corresponding reality as to the edit, as to the rationale` being made for it, by L.K.

S.D. has also pointed that out fairly or accurately. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, (no matter what that is) or to advance a specific agenda (so called mainstream published material in a certain category) instead of just the ordinary concept of reliable sources, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Accurate edit summaries are important as others with no general history of something depend on the neutral valuation, as to the explanations or reasons of the previous editor, for doing what they did. I reverted to the former edit which was there for a while and seemingly o.k. , and Tagged the section as to neutrality. Not sure if that is the right move or if tags like that should or can be used on a project page, but since this is an ongoing debate related to recent mediation issues etc. maybe it is good to have that section tagged for further overview? Comments? skip sievert (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why welcome back Skip. Happy to see that even though you've quit mediation and declared your intention to leave Wikipedia, you still find time to come add your particular brand of editing to our Wikiproject talk page. LK (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, for someone who just made a big fuss about edit summaries, don't you think you should have labeled your reversion to your version from 8th October correctly as such, instead of labeling it "See discussion. Trying for neutral pov in this edit", which seems somewhat misleading? LK (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines (again)

I'm restoring to the version which SD reverted to the last time. At least it's an improvement over what's there now. Since SD reverted to that version, I assume he's ok with it. LK (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that version for now, at least on the assumption that we'll address the issue of guidelines in an orderly manner. —SlamDiego_←T 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Economics article

Current debate about weight and guidelines and policy are manifesting on the main Economics article and the discussion page which has contained stable information for some time but now... sudden deletions by L.K. J.Q. and Cretog8 removing information (encyclopedic information properly sourced in my view) and calling the reasons, because of weight. This information is well known, forms the basis of Ecological economics, the concept of Energy accounting, which is also one of the most basic aspects of Energy economics and Biophysical economics which forms the basis of using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology. I see the removal of pertinent and in my view well rounded well known information connected, to past discussion and debate on these subjects, because several self identified experts, do not believe these things are important. skip sievert (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this NYT article makes a good example for our discussion of wp:weight. I think the NYT is a reliable source for these purposes. We aren't relying on them to get the theory really correct, it's just covering that there is this "movement" or whatever it should be called. Based on this article, I'm willing to accept a link to biophysical economics (or "thermoeconomics", I'm taking the redirector's word that they're the same thing) in the Economics article. One snippet in the NYT doesn't make it relevant enough to warrant coverage beyond a link, though. Anyway, I think this makes for a good example because it's the kind of thing that, for me, qualifies as a reliable source, but isn't an academic source. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. There have been countless numbers of articles written about the history, theory and schools of economics. If thermoeconomics is really important, one of those article should have mentioned it, at least in passing. Unless there is a reliable source out there that discusses economics, and mentions thermoeconomics as a part of economics, I would argue that it's fringe and therefore mention in the economics article is undue. LK (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You can not just remove things that are reliably sourced L.K. because of bias or lack of knowledge of those things or lack of interest. Cretog you removed information about Frederick Soddy on the article also instead of tagging it or discussing it. That can be sourced easily to mainstream discussion here, and I suggest you put the information back in... or instead of removing information make an effort to discuss information and sourcing. skip sievert (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I find annoying the syntactical mush of Skip's comments. Suppose I take it as given that "bioeconomics" is a synonym for "thermoeconomics". Then Lawrence's comment is clearly uninformed. For example:

"Mankind's mode of existence is dominated neither by biology nor by economics. It is instead a complex bioeconomic web... [footnote] The label 'bioeconomics' for the conception of the economic activity as the extension of biological life (a theme which had its precedents) was suggested to me in letter of 24 April 1972 by Jiri Zeman, the editor of Entropy and Information in Science and Philosophy (1975), to which I contributed a chapter. The term had already been used by a few writers, albeit with an inverted meaning: the economics of some biota..." -- Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, "Man and Production", in Foundations of Economics: Structures of Inquiry and Economic Theory (ed. by M. Baranzini and R. Scazzieri), Basil Blackwell (1986)

I doubt Lawrence would be happy with replacing all occurences of "thermoeconomics" with "bioeconomics". -- RLV 209.217.195.141 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, your right there. To my knowledge, Bioeconomics..thermoeconomics, and biophysical economics is all the same thing, and deals with the same things... energy, resources and economics mainstream or heterdox versions vary within all of those also as to cultural things... all have to do with energetics and systems theory etc. Somehow they got scrambled out. Energy accounting also is pretty much the same thing also. Mostly biophysical economics seems to be the leading phrase presently to describe the concept. skip sievert (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is very mainstream "neoclassical" economics within the "bioeconomics" discipline, for instance dealing with fisheries. So, either bioeconomics is different from thermoeconomics or thermoeconomics is not what I've been led to understand. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Led to understand? Maybe you could read the information. Please cease and desist wikihounding my edits Cretog. Your recent personal attack which you were warned about is a continuing issue here also

and following me around from art. to art. skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What we have here is one editor's rather idiosyncratic definition for the terms bioeconomics, biophysical economics, energy economics, thermoeconomics, and econophysics; and his conflation of all these different concepts together into a justification for his interpretation of what these concepts are (which is that all these terms refer to the theories of the technocracy movement). If you search thorough the academic literature, you will find that work done under the moniker of bioeconomics is about the effective management of natural resources (management of fisheries, woodlands, appropriate environmental regulations etc.) Similarly, in the literature, the term thermoeconomics mainly appears in relation to 'exergy analysis' a 'thermodynamic technique for assessing and improving the efficiency of processes, devices and systems'. The main use of this is in improving the efficiency and lowering the costs of production processes that use energy intensive production technologies (manufacturing of steel, aluminum, plastics, petroleum refineries). As another example, energy economics is a mainstream field of economics that deals with the supply and use of energy in societies. Skip merely conflates all those terms together, and draws citations from those fields to argue about the notability of his fringe technocracy movement-inspired conception of the way the economy works. We should be aware of this, and edit appropriately. LK (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's concept of bioeconomics is broader than "the study of the effective management of natural resources." I like how Lawrence is now telling us how the term "thermoeconomics" is used in the literature. Wasn't he telling us yesterday that the term does not appear in the literature? -- RLV 209.217.195.152 (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What he said was "There have been countless numbers of articles written about the history, theory and schools of economics. If thermoeconomics is really important, one of those article should have mentioned it, at least in passing". I don't think anybody is denying there is some literature about thermoeconomics, and I'm sure I have seen it mentioned in passing in a survey so that's an exaggeration. There's enormous amounts of stuff written about all sorts of things in economics. The problem is giving the various bits due weight. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very simply L.K. and Cretog and J.Q. are removing information on energy economics because of an apparent conflict of interest in regard to Keynes. Very simple to see that. They tandem edit mainstream... and have cited fringe, as the reason for removing the very well known and mainstream ideas of people like the one in this artlce Further they call ideas like this fringe also Energy accounting. Currently this tandem group is still removing the well know information from idea connected with Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen from the economics article. Also these editors have taken to following me around and wiki-hounding me. A clear pattern of removing sourced information and trying to create hoop jumping for those that disagree with their pov conflict of interest... so called mainstream. L.K. J.Q. and Cretog show no sign of letting up in this regard. Note this discussion by L.K. here. I believe that L.K. should be topic banned from editing economics articles now because of his tactics and because of his technique of editing article in that regard which follows this method Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, this is a hard one though to get a handle on but the relentless way of attacking, his accusations of edit warring, and his constant stirring of alliances (meat puppets) in my opinion is poisoning the well. Would others support a topic ban? I also see a continuation from J.Q. and L.K. tandem editing their pov conflict of interest here, and it looks like they are about to try to tear up another article accordingly here - skip sievert (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The bioeconomics article links to a table of contents for the Springer(!) Journal of Bioeconomics, http://ideas.repec.org/s/kap/jbioec.html. It seems clear that bioeconomics is about much more than "the effective management of natural resources". I want to read a bit more Georgescu-Roegen, but he clearly wrote about extensions of thermodynamics, energy accounting, and Soddy all in the context of extending his notion of bioeconomics. -- RLV 209.217.195.138 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Another key and interesting person involved in all of this is this guy Alfred J. Lotka. Also related Systems ecology - skip sievert (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To end all doubt that bioeconomics refers to the collaboration between mainstream economists and biologists, and the application of mainstream economics to questions in biology, and vice versa – and that it is not the same as thermoeconomics, which is again different from technocracy movement theories – let me point you to the description of Journal of Bioeconomics:[37]

The Journal of Bioeconomics encourages creative dialogue between biologists and economists, and facilitates the bilateral sharing of concepts and tools. There once was considerable communication between economists and biologists: Thomas Malthus was credited by both Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace for crucial insights in their pursuit of the idea of natural selection. The fields seem to be converging again. From economics, the journal welcomes different paradigms, including game theory, evolutionary economics, institutional economics, law-and-economics, public choice theory, behavioral and ecological economics, feminist economics, theories of entrepreneurship, and more. From biology, the journal welcomes contributions from evolutionary biology, systematic biology, behavioral ecology, ethology, paleobiology, paleontology, sociobiology, and others. The scholarly discussion covers bioeconomic topics as well as cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, epistemology, and ethics.

Also, the titles of the papers published in the last year:

1. Comparative economics: evolution and the modern economy
2. An empirical investigation of organizational memetic variation
3. A game-theoretic model of coalition formation among primates
4. Convergent cultural evolution and multilevel selection:
5. Homogeneous middleman groups as superorganisms, endogamous ethnic groups, and trust networks
6. Happiness and declining inframarginal values
7. Evolutionary perspectives on salary dispersion within firms
8. Diversity, persistence and chaos in consumption patterns
9. Modeling economic and agro-environmental dynamics of potato production systems
10. Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think: Reflections by Scientists, Writers, and
11. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information
12. Making economic sense of brain models: a survey and interpretation of the literature

Here are the top papers on thermoeconomics that Google scholar brings up. As can be seen, they deal with engineering problems, and not with bioeconomics.

1. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems, G Tsatsaronis - Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 1993
2. Beyond thermoeconomics? The concept of Extended Exergy Accounting and its application to the analysis and design of thermal systems, E Sciubba - Exergy, 2001 - Elsevier
3. Finite-time thermodynamics and thermoeconomics, S Sieniutycz, P Salamon, 1990 - Taylor & Francis New York
4. The thermoeconomics of energy conversions, YM El-Sayed, 2003 - Pergamon
5. Thermoeconomics and the design of heat systems, YM El-Sayed, RB Evans - Journal of engineering for power, 1970
6. Structural theory of thermoeconomics, A Valero, L Serra, MA Lozano - ASME, NEW YORK, NY,(USA)., 1993
7. Optimization of thermal systems based on finite-time thermodynamics and thermoeconomics, A Durmayaz, OS Sogut, B Sahin, H Yavuz - Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2004
8. Structural theory and thermoeconomic diagnosis Part I. On malfunction and dysfunction, C Torres, A Valero, L Serra, J Royo - Energy Conversion and Management, 2002 - Elsevier

I hope we can stop this silliness now. LK (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You looked up the wrong thing. Try looking up Biophysical economics. That relates to Systems ecology and living systems and energy also... Systems ecology relates to bioeconomics. All three are related to each other. - skip sievert (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank Lawrence for demonstrating that bioeconomics does not refer to "the collaboration between mainstream economists and biologists". I refer to "the journal welcomes different paradigms, including ... evolutionary economics, institutional economics, ... ecological economics, [and] feminist economics..." Lawrence has also demonstrated that it is incorrect to say that "work done under the moniker of bioeconomics is about the effective management of natural resources (management of fisheries, woodlands, appropriate environmental regulations etc.)" -- RLV 209.217.195.154 (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you not read the description and table of contents of the journal posted above? Further, "evolutionary economics, institutional economics, ... ecological economics, [and] feminist economics" are all fields in mainstream economics. I'm going to stop talking to you now. LK (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia (and correctly, amazingly enough) evolutionary economics, ecological economics and feminist economics are all non-mainstream heterodox economics. Old institutional economics is also a kind of non-mainstream heterodox economics. -- RLV 209.217.195.156 (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First, heterodox is not the same as WP:FRINGE. But lets look at the complete list shall we? "... game theory (orthodox), evolutionary economics, institutional economics (orthodox), law-and-economics (orthodox), public choice theory (orthodox), behavioral (orthodox) and ecological economics (often considered the same as environmental economics which is orthodox), feminist economics, theories of entrepreneurship (orthodox), and more." Notably missing, thermoeconomics (usually a field in engineering), technocracy movement (fringe). LK (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I take Lawrence's comment to be a non sequitur, as well as misinformed. -- RLV 209.217.195.178 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Redefinition of weight

Ok, my warning bells are starting to go off. Danger Will Robinson.. I'm a little worried about pushing such a guideline - a recent post by LK demonstrates some of my concern. I don't necessary disagree with the choices of weight, but the means to this end I think is inappropriate. Academia can have bias, and being how political economics can be, we should not go down this road of basing weight on the type of reliable source. There are larger principles here, and I don't want us to undermine the policies of the encyclopedia to fit our project and personal goals. Morphh ^(talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you determine when Academia is biased? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, all sources could be bias in one way or another, which is why we don't base weight of any subset of reliable sources. Weight is based on prominence in all reliable sources, using the guidelines set forward in NPOV. Morphh ^(talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morph as to his estimation of what is going on, and note that several editors are going from article to article, and that includes articles for deletion now, also making articles for deletion, and piling on the theory of mainstream having weight. An editor in the project here, just nominated this A.f.d. while citing in an edit summary about weight being an issue while editing a tag on the article also on this A.f.d. Cretog, J.Q, and Lawrence Khoo and several others, appear to be editing this weight as to reliable sources theory on numbers of articles in what I believe is a detriment of the goals of encyclopedic presentation. See the posting above about the main Economics article, and also the A.f.d. for a very notable

M. King Hubbert authored, and (in my opinion a valuable edition to the project) this book also, [38]. Changes to numbers of other articles that are reliably sourced and neutrally presented seem to be happening. I am trying to phrase all this as neutrally as possible. skip sievert (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your objection Morphh, could you clarify a little? I believe that weight for articles on core economics topics (like inflation, price, recessions) should be based mainly on academic and peer-reviewed sources, e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles, textbooks, academic handbooks, other encyclopedias, books published by university presses, studies by academic think tanks (NBER, Hoover Institute) and other research producing institutions (e.g. Federal Reserve), academic books published by respectable printing houses, websites hosted by universities, and journals and magazines associated with universities or university presses, but that are not peer reviewed.

From the pool of reliable sources this leaves out only those sources that are strictly non-academic, i.e. mainstream newspapers and media outlets, and popular magazines. Are there any other reliable sources that are non-academic? Newspapers, magazines and other media can contribute somewhat to weight, but frankly I don't think we should rely too much on them. I mean, do we want the Washington Post to be a major determinant of weight in the article on inflation? Are you really arguing that in core economics articles, we should weight theories from CNN, the New York Times, and Newsweek with equal weight as theories published in major academic journals and found in the standard textbooks? I'm really puzzled; am I missing something here, could you clarify? LK (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note. L.K. I flatly view your situational reasoning above with alarm because you take the opposite stance elsewhere as to sourcing an article you work on and defend that with vigor here. Very much having a hard time trying to follow the reasoning with your edits in support of newspapers/magazines and T.V. shows in one place and not in another. You mount a defense/apology in the positive of several newspaper articles and a T.V. show, to source an entire lead recently here 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, an article you edit. I see no problems using mainstream or not so mainstream newspapers as long as they are reliable sources, but how is it that you argue for it..., and then against it, in different places? Situational? skip sievert (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As a policy, NPOV weight does not discuss the quality of reliable sources. So while understandable, I don't think there is justification for saying that a non-academic source holds less weight on Wikipedia for NPOV. Quality of sources is primarily for verifiability, not NPOV. I think your approach may conflict with the policy itself, as it reduces the sources used for determining weight (giving weight to the subset of rs). The Washington Post should not be a major determinate of weight in the article on inflation unless additional sources (academic or otherwise) report the same thing giving the viewpoint prominence in reliable sources. In most cases, the weight of reliable sources should be similar to the weight in academic publications (since they make up a large portion of the overall weight as you pointed out). Oddly, I feel like I'm playing devil's advocate, because I don't disagree with you when it comes down to it, it's more an aspect of principle to policy. Maybe I should just shut my pie hole. Morphh ^(talk) 21:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think this is a problem of academic as opposed to newspaper sources. My criticism of using newspaper articles on economic topics as sources is that they are very often confused, or just plain wrong. In general, I don't think they represent a POV notably different from that of mainstream academic sources, in fact they generally exclude minority viewpoints altogether - I don't recall seeing anything from an explicitly post-Keynesian perspective before the recent interest in Minsky, for example. The real problem is that we need an agreement on how to treat minority (Austrian) and fringe (Technocracy etc) viewpoints that are strongly supported on Wikipedia to an extent disproportionate to their real-world support. In the case of Technocracy, for example, I would guess that the total number of remaining adherents of this viewpoint is (at best) in double digits, and representation other than in sporadically self-published sources is virtually zero, but one or two editors can make a lot of noise. We had a similar case with Edward R. Dewey.JQ (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some examples of reliable sources (1) Frederick S. Lee (2004) "To Be a Heterodox Economist: The Contested Landscape of American Economics, 1960s and 1970s", Journal of Economic Issues, V. 38, N. 3 (Sep): pp. 747-763. (2) John B, Davis (2008) "The Turn in Recent Economics and Return of Orthodoxy", Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 32, N. 3: pp. 349-366. (3) Geoffrey M. Hodgson and Harry Rothman (2001) "The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: A Case of Institutional Oligopoly?", Economic Journal, V. 109, Iss. 453: pp. 165-186. (4) Alfred S. Eichner (ed.) (1983) Why Economics is not Yet a Science. (5) Paul Ormerod and Craig Mounfield (2000) "Random Matrix Theory and the Failure of Macro-Economic Forecasts", Physica A. (6) Steve Keen (2002) Debunking Economics. According to reliable sources, orthodox economics need not be taken seriously. -- RLV 67.246.65.147 (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because something says 'debunking economics' on the cover doesn't mean that orthodox economics isn't taken seriously inside. And I think that should be 'according to some reliable sources' and one should figure out due weight to give to the asssertion. This is definitely not a reason to suddenly start emphasizing the importance of theories like, the flow of resources like energy is important in economics and physicists have laws about its flow - therefore thermodynamics must be important in economics, beyond any due weight given to such theories in all reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I take Dmcq's comment to be a non sequitur. I do happen to take, for example, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen seriously. -- RLV 209.217.195.151 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean what I say. We're talking about due weight here. If you want some physics introduced properly into economics then Black–Scholes is an example. It doesn't pretend it is something it isn't, it just brought in the methods. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good. -- RLV 209.217.195.123 (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I get the complaint, but nothing absolves us of the responsibility to situate claims in the appropriate context. It is almost completely valueless to say that "Weight is based on prominence in all reliable sources, using the guidelines set forward in NPOV." because no complete accounting of all reliable sources is possible. Even if a complete accounting of sources were possible, there is no fully neutral method to compare claims between sources. We are just as much at risk of generating a false equivalence between sources as we are to unfairly exclude a given source. So editors much make some choice about (assuming no complete accounting) which sources to weigh and how to weigh them. We can either agree on some common articulation of our expectations or we can continue to have editors choose sources based on some internal determination of who is right and wrong in modern economics. Again, I really want to refocus people on building a model like WP:MEDRS. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Morphh, I don't really think we have a disagreement. For any actual article, we're very likely to come to the same conclusion regarding what is appropriate weight given the available reliable sources. If it sits better with you, I will stop using the phrase weight in 'academic sources' and use 'reliable sources' instead.

Protonk, I totally agree with you here, both about the inability to actually 'add up' views in all reliable sources and the need for concrete guidelines like MEDRS. But I really don't see how we can go forward. If you can set up an agenda, you have my full support.

--LK (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source is a reliable source. Pretty simple. I do not want to point fingers here... but, there are some self described expert economic editors that are highly specialized in a certain way, that may not be familiar with many aspects of economic thought. That seems to be a fact. The above comment by a user on the subject of this person makes that clear The Hungarian-born mathematician and economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, as to mainstream... if I can use that term, which I do not like anymore because of its inability to inform... this was the first person to formally demonstrate the thermodynamic foundations of the economic process though it goes back before the Physiocrats. Roegen had a profound influence on leading alternative economic theorists such as Herman Daly, one of the founders of the field of ecological economics. All mainstream, and that is a fact.

At base there are a number of sincere good faith editors here, who do not understand much about the concepts, history, and current aspects of energy economics, and how that is currently applied... in a very mainstream way currently here and in regard to some of the mistaken arguments between economists in that regard.

The problem here has arisen in my opinion because of a general lack of knowledge as to what is going on in the real world of energy economics and the profound debate happening among the most elite of thinkers in regard to that, in these fields such as here. - Where things have gotten weird in my opinion is the defense/apology of using mainstream connected weight in defense of edits. Since economics as we use them is a belief system for the most part and has no counterpoint in natural science beyond collating information as science does of data. This is the crux I think of what has gone wrong in regard to thinking about this issue here. Neither current heterodox or current mainstream connected ideas have more weight or value, but both form an overview of the subject. The aim of an encyclopedia is to present aspects of a subject fairly, not debate the merits of approaches.

As long as this group of editors continues to edit according to this method (L.K., J.Q. and Cretog8, and some others of trying to maintain a certain pov... economic articles will suffer. skip sievert (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is about relative weight to be used. This all strikes me rather like the essay I was just reading on The Truth. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rapidly advancing technologies now provide the 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. Kay, J. (2002). Kay, J.J. "On Complexity Theory, Exergy and Industrial Ecology: Some Implications for Construction Ecology." In: Kibert C., Sendzimir J., Guy, B. (eds.) Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, pp. 72–107. London: Spon Press. Retrieved on: 2009-04-01. name = Quest> Baksh, B. and Fiksel J. (June 2003) "The Quest for Sustainability: Challenges for Process Systems Engineering." American Institute Of Chemical Engineers Journal 49(6):1355. Retrieved on: 2009-04-04.

All that is tied into energy and Biophysical economics. Currently those ideas are being stripped from the main Economics article, and other places by the editors mentioned above. They also call it a weight issue or fringe issue. A group of mainstream economics advocates or believers, blocking expression of a well rounded picture because of not being interested or having the knowledge concerning other ideas pertaining to the field, might be happening by default by several editors that back up and enforce themselves and end up making a pov c.o.i. toward Keynes/Smith, perceived mainstream, in disregard for other views... kind of like this method Iron law of oligarchy. Expert editors also may be members of special interest groups directly or indirectly and certain groups are not exactly known as creative [39] and can be reasonably termed a special interest group or faction of pov in regard to money. skip sievert (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. It is not supposed to be creative. It is not a forum for new ideas which have not been properly accepted yet. You are in wikipedia terms arguing against yourself. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? How? You are not commenting on the issue. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. New ideas? What would those be? Your comment another non sequitur?? like the other above? You think that ideas about Biophysical economics are new ideas?... or that ideas like this are not notable or a part of economics as to presentation of information on Wikipedia? Or that things like this are not really mainstream? - skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about weight. I am not denying notability. Looking at that site I have no problem with that page. However I am surprised they have put up such a confused and messy site. They talk about the two laws of thermodynamics. They stick in things like isotopic spin. It goes on. They really should have somebody with a bit of sense go through and fix it all up. Dmcq (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion on Encyclopedia of Earth

I've just started a discussion at the releable sources noticeboard on the Encyclopedia of Earth. I'd appreciate thoughts there. (I'll try to post similar notices to other relevant wikiprojects). CRETOG8(t/c) 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since not everyone will go there to examine this information I will post what I posted there.

If Encyclopedia of Earth is not a reliable source then there is no such thing as a reliable source ;). It is beautifully done, and it is peer reviewed and topic edited and the largest reliable information resource on the environment in history. See this page for more information. Economics in regard to environment is just one of many subjects published there. The Environmental Information Coalition (EIC) is comprised of a diverse group of respected scientists and educators, and the organizations, agencies, and institutions for which they work. The EIC defines the roles and responsibilities for individuals and institutions involved in the Coalition, as well as the editorial guidelines for the Encyclopedia.

The Secretariat for the EIC is the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE), Washington D.C., USA. NCSE is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization with a reputation for objectivity, responsibility, and achievement in its promotion of a scientific basis for environmental decision-making. The Department of Geography and Environment and the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University also provide editorial support. skip sievert (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Whether there is consensus and what the consensus is has become a matter of practical debate here. Comments are welcome. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that consensus over at WP:RSN is that EoE is not a reliable source. Everyone should abide by this. LK (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Supply and demand criticisms

We're having some disagreements over at a new criticisms section of the supply and demand article, discussing on talk page. Other thoughts would be welcome. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We really need at least one more set of eyes. We've hit an impasse over the appropriate use of a quote from Samuelson. CRETOG8(t/c) 10:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

An article could use some eyes from people familiar with the topic.

Constant Purchasing Power Accounting could really use some help from some more editors. It's been mostly edited by a single user. kmccoy (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Economics and energy merge

There's a new article Economics and energy, and a discussion about whether to merge the article into the Energy economics article. There's a discussion short of consesnsus here. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)