Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

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 LK 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:

strongly implied that LK was wrong to post the message
got into the connection of environment and economics
attacked LK for his editing on the Sustainability article as POV and "in tandem"
hit on the mainstream issue, "a mainstream pov of a political persuasion "
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)

Yes, after trying futility to dig for weightier sources, I substantially agree. I do think there is an article to be written on, to employ another dubious neologism, the econosphere in general. There is something quite distinctive about the style and social dynamics of the high-profile academic economist blogging community. Rather nebulous topic to approach, though. Skomorokh, barbarian 09:49, 28 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

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:[1]

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:

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

Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems, G Tsatsaronis - Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 1993
Beyond thermoeconomics? The concept of Extended Exergy Accounting and its application to the analysis and design of thermal systems, E Sciubba - Exergy, 2001 - Elsevier
Finite-time thermodynamics and thermoeconomics, S Sieniutycz, P Salamon, 1990 - Taylor & Francis New York
The thermoeconomics of energy conversions, YM El-Sayed, 2003 - Pergamon
Thermoeconomics and the design of heat systems, YM El-Sayed, RB Evans - Journal of engineering for power, 1970
Structural theory of thermoeconomics, A Valero, L Serra, MA Lozano - ASME, NEW YORK, NY,(USA)., 1993
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
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)

Yes, on both counts. Misinformed for sure. No excuse as to that because it has been explained over and over that he is looking in the wrong direction and actually not using the most correct term when the most used term is Biophysical economics which is connected directly to Systems ecology, which is directly connected to Bioeconomics. This points out the recurring problem of three or four people tandem editing for so called mainstream that either are misinformed or not interested in a realistic discussion of issues. Further example of the very strange rhetorical polemic of L.K. here, and I seriously think a topic ban for L.K. on economics articles is in order or discussion of that because he is removing information, along with J.Q. and Cretog8 that is sourced and important for the project and giving reasons of fringe or weight when those are not at issue. These editors tandem edit as to information removal against policy and ignore basic guidelines also or Wikilawyer others and Wikihounding more serious editors repeatedly, and recruit others to that purpose constantly. Not good. Crusading mainstream being done... though mainstream is a very amorphous term. I see no change of behavior. Topic ban? skip sievert (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"is connected to" is very distinct from "is the same as". Linear algebra is related to mathematical optimization which is related to game theory which is related to economics which is related to finance which is related to accounting which is related to inventory management which is related to database design. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Take away: bioeconomics is not the same as biophysical economics, is not the same as energy economics, is not the same as thermoeconomics, is not the same as econophysics; and all of the above are not the same as technocracy movement theories. Nothing to see here folks, moving along. LK (talk) 17:07, 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 LK 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, [2]. 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 [3] 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)

Not so. It is clear that yourself and several tandem editors do not like the link because it disagrees with your pov. Others think the link valuable and the site itself can be used. skip sievert (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I do intend to remove references to eoearth in economics articles. Would it make things go smoother to aim for an all-at-once purge, or gradually? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither. The opinions were mixed. It is a reliable source. You are removing good information because you do not like the information? That is not good. Bring up a request for comment before making a radical move like removing articles that are made by some of the great thinkers of our time and topic edited by same. skip sievert (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Who thought it was a reliable source? I didn't count anyone but yourself. II | (t - c) 06:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The first person that saw it that was not connected with the editing team (for mainstream), did give a qualified yes to it as did others. This is some of the very best information on the internet I.I. as to being wonderfully done, and nicely presented. Some of the articles that are topic reviewed by the cream of the crop of academic all stars in regard to environment from the top schools that have made this information available look over each others shoulders as to standards. See this for more information skip sievert (talk) 19:07, 29 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)

There is no consensus for a merge. The issue was confused from the beginning with a tag and there was no follow up by the tagger, who never discussed afterward. Information in both places is very different, and mostly not connected. skip sievert (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban

Is there interest among the neutral pov editors here for a topic ban for L.K. LK, as to editing economics articles on the project? There is a recurring problem of himself and a couple of other editors John Quiggin and Cretog8 tandem editing articles relating to economics, see this and this recently I see no change in behavior, if any thing this behavior is increasing in strident advocacy, and becoming more disruptive. Expert editors or people that claim that role making weight arguments and fringe arguments against guidelines and general policy over and over and over, is not going to move the project forward, and more serious editors are stuck with dealing with people removing reliably sourced information and neutral presentation of the big picture. Comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipsievert (talk • contribs)

I imagine your first step toward getting a topic ban is to bring up a new discussion at WP:ANI, and post a notice about that discussion here. It won't be a surprise to you that I disagree. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we should stop at ANI, this disagreement should probably go to the Arbitration Committee, since mediation did not work. LK (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it works that way. I am just putting out a feeler here for opinions about topic banning you LK, because of what I consider being disruptive editing techniques. There is concern about that as this shows it an ongoing problem. This is not connected to mediation or Ani, so I am not sure why you are bringing that up. It is connected to what in my view is blatant disregard for ordinary policy and guidelines and editing to a non neutral pov consistently and detrimentally to the project in economics articles. skip sievert (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, do make a post at ANI. Considering the amount of time I've wasted here arguing, and the mental aggravation that comes from pointing out the obvious to people who can't understand an undergraduate textbook in economics, let alone an article in Econometrica, I should welcome a long break from Wikipedia. LK (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you'd like a break, and others would like to see you step away, a voluntary withdrawal would be in order. Meanwhile, I would like to note that if I insisted upon repeatedly distinguishing those whom I regard as real economists from those whom I do not, there would be (with perhaps some justification) angry civility complaints. Likewise, your repeated distinctions are uncivil; please cease. —SlamDiego_←T 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I find your repeated illogical criticisms directed at me uncivil. Please cease. LK (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A civility complaint based upon just any criticism would fail. But a civility complaint based upon our repeatedly venting our various opinions on who is economically incompetent would succeed. So, again, you need to stop. —SlamDiego_←T 18:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I suggest you post at Wikiquette if you a really believe as you do. LK (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, a civility complaint would only be appropriate if you keep-up with that sort of attack. Right now, a warning is the appropriate step (which is exactly what someone complaining to Wikiquette Alerts would be told at this point). I'll hope that no further warnings will be required, or at least that you'll restrain yourself before things progress beyond warnings. —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat. Go on I dares you. LK (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A threat to do what? To try a few more warnings if-and-when you continue to be uncivil in this way? To move beyond warnings if you keep it up? How would one be supposed to take you up on such a dare unless you persisted in this sort of incivility? —SlamDiego_←T 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, Skip isn't really identifying anything concrete that LK is doing. No particular diffs were referenced. A topic ban for Skip looks more in the cards right now. Let's stop acting like a bunch of testosterone-charged adolescents. Cretog8's compromise mention of biophysical/thermoeconomics is quite reasonable (diff). There's no reason for the economics article to use more space on this new, obscure area of economics than say, institutional economics or evolutionary economics. II | (t - c) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

- Some diffs of L.K. in regard to behavior, removing sourced cited information. Using blog/forum information from off site because of a perception it is connected with me somehow as a way to dig up attack information - Using the project page to solicit votes wrongly as to guideline/policy and phrasing it in a way to destroy good faith in the Mediation occurring elsewhere. - His editing partner Cretog8's personal attack No apology given.Original starting point of weight issues fringe issues etc. was really a very plain and awful attack on Visionthing who is a good neutral point of view editor in my opinion. I had to change the header because it was extremely negative and mentioned editor by editing handle, against guidelines. Cretog tandem editing as was done by he and J.Q. on the economics article over and over. - on energy related economics - L.K. telling me I hold goals against Wikipedia [4] - L.K. using very strange edit summaries [5] - These are a few. No doubt others have some.skip sievert (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip, I don't see anything inappropriate in LK notifying this WikiProject, which has interacted with you a lot, that there's an ANI discussion about you. As far as the offwiki evidence, perhaps it's not part of wiki etiquette to bring that in, but let's call a spade a spade: it's good evidence that you have a history of not playing nice, and eventually people have gotten fed up. It's frustrating that you won't admit that your behavior with regard to biophysical economics and related theories is similar to the guy who keeps on adding the grb link to the ecological economics article. We shouldn't be imposing our favorite theories in areas that they don't belong. I'm a pretty impartial viewer; if anything I have reason to be partial to Skip's side, since we've collobarated OK before and are both interested in environmental economics and critical of mainstream economics. Please acknowledge that there are issues with your behavior. You're driving off even any potential supporters. II | (t - c) 06:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Driving off potential supporters? Not the issue, and I do not like your appraisal or comparisons. Its not about me. It is about the behavior of this editor. As to talking about the garbage link above...?.. not interested in your opinion of that in connection with me as an editor, why are you posting that here? That has zero to do with the discussion. If you are uninformed about the very serious study of Biophysical economics N.Y. Times article and how that relates to Systems ecology then that is your issue and not mine. I hope that is clear. And, I am not looking for alliances on Wikipedia, just good neutral presentation with reliable sources. See your talk page for further information here.

It is far-fetched, and inappropriate, to blame LK for the actions of other editors, including mine. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You tandem edit with him along with J.Q. as to issues discussed. skip sievert (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed topic ban. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising since your edit history shows the same kind of editing in concert with the people in question here as your edit history shows. skip sievert (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed topic ban. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If Skipsievert wants to try doing that then let him/her is my feeling. And that's not exactly in a 'with my blessings' sort of sense. To be perfectly clear I don't think it is a good idea. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not surprising since your edit history shows the same kind of editing in concert with the people in question here. skip sievert (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Skip is already posting [6] as if a topic ban is a fait accompli, I'm cool with the idea. Let's go to the Arbitration Committee and see what comes of it. Like LK, I'm busy enough that, if Arbcom sees things Skip's way, it will help save me from my urge to spend time I can't afford on this project.JQ (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

description of smaller, related fields

If it's possible to keep the rancor low, we might actually be able to have a discussion which can help us identify how WP should describe things like bioeconomics, thermoeconomics, biophysical economics and such. They may be related, but the important thing is first to figure out what they are, and thereafter describe the relationship. It's quite possible there's more than one definition for a term, and if that's true the multiple definitions should be treated as just that. Likewise the definition may be extremely broad, in which case it should be treated as such. For instance, it appears (this may turn out wrong) that "bioeconomics" may just be a catch-all term for "interdisciplinary work between biology and economics". For the sake of the discussion, we could possibly turn to non-RS, but since we're aiming to improve articles, reliable sources which could be used in articles would be much more helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think some communities of scholars look at economies as being embedded in some larger system with a biophysical substrate. Anyway, here's a reference: Peter A. Corning (2002) "Thermoeconomis: Beyond the Second Law", Journal of Bioeconomics, V. 4, N. 1 (Jan.): pp. 57-88, Gated: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w82u5x2658426270/; ungated: http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/thermoecon.pdf. I also stumbled upon this retrospective: John Gowdy and Susan Mesner (1998) "The Evolution of Georgescu-Roegen's Bioeconomics", Review of Social Economy, V. 56, N. 2 (Summer) http://www.rpi.edu/~gowdyj/mypapers/RSE1998.pdf. -- RLV 209.217.195.186 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All the information concerning this topic is well known as in mainstream literature and is related to Systems ecology. Mostly these issues and related issues are due to stubborn refusal to get points ala this type of refusal, given by the edit team led by L.K. which includes J.Q. and Cretog8 and some others concerning this. This seems fairly plain. Since they are not willing to get the points given it is probably pointless to use Wikipedia as a sounding board for these well known issues of energy economics. They are removing that type of information in a confused and uninformed way from article to article. Most all of the information is right in front of everybody interested in looking at it.

This is where the bias/pov of editors is coming in and pov conflict of interest by so called mainstream editors, and that is now a recurring problem on economics articles. Basic info. on these subjects biophysical economics work group and EROII institute. No shortage these were picked at random. Knowledge about this information is not the problem, and I have given multiple links to the editors in question concerning this over and over. There is a larger problem. Belief. Belief in terms by L.K. J.Q. and Cretog of their ideas of mainstream being weighty... good, and the only show in town as to having the most notability. That is the problem. According to this duck test what these editors are actually doing, if their actions, edit summaries, and discussion is the prime indicator. skip sievert (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since my explicit effort to have a useful discussion without rancor was rapidly answered with a personal attack on myself and other editors, I'm done with this discussion for the time being. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so much. To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, just "tell it like it is." Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review. Being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable or credulous. I suggest you comment on what is being brought up. skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Please continue discussion at WQA. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Following a recent post by Skipsievert to my talk page, I have filed a report at Wikiquette alerts. I would request that Skipsievert reply to my report there: [7]. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You tandem edit with L.K. and crew against Visionthing and this is a larger issue related to multiple articles. This is about such as this L.K.'s original post that started the mess on this page here. where you support L.K. and those mainstream views. Its that simple. I asked you to stop Wikihounding people that disagree with your and L.K.'s pov. That clear? I also asked you to not post comments on my talk page. Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please post your comments to WQA. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you have canvassed those editors in this team of LK, and JQ and CRETOG8 etc. (mainstream if that is the word), to come to an alert. Not good, and you are well aware that I have called for L.K. to be topic banned from economics articles. You have made the statement.. quote, I oppose the proposed topic ban. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC). Is that what this is really about then you are aware of all these issues. I posted my thoughts on your user page (talk) and that should be clear I hope I think. My opinion is that you tandem edit often with L.K. and others to a pov and are now stirring the pot some more as to that as here, and this is ongoing it seems you are hounding Visionthing as those others were/are. This to me is a continuation of the trouble started here by L.K. and crew that want to affirm mainstream and dismiss anything not really connected to that, and it is getting old. skip sievert (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you do not wish to reply to the WQA. If that is your wish, then I will add that to the WQA. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is noted that you are canvassing here. - skip sievert (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Consumer Leading Indicators

Could others check out the new Consumer Leading Indicators article and the talk page? The article looks like very carefully-constructed advertising, with a good number of references and such, but nothing establishing notability. On the other hand, I might just be clueless. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

IShares DJ Euro Stoxx 50

There is an ongoing deletion discussion about an economics-related article here. Your contributions to the discussion would be appreciated. Neelix (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Thorstein Veblen

Can anybody talk LK into not vandalizing http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thorstein_Veblen&diff=325554214&oldid=325531889 the article on Thorstein Veblen? I've sourced a statement that, as I understand it, was inserted in a version developed by experts, such as Anne Mayhew. One thing every expert knows about Veblen is he had some sort of association with Technocracy. (I prefer to think of Veblen as so morose, detached, and misanthropic that he did not hold out much hope for any reforms to improve things much.) -- RLV 209.217.195.158 (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't describe someone you have a disagreement with as vandalizing an article, just because he disagrees with your edits to it. Doing so is a personal attack. LK (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest using the article talk page, and discussing disagreements about content, weight and such, as a disagreement rather than "vandalism". CRETOG8(t/c) 14:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also happen to think that LK's November 6 changes to WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight are disputable too. -- RLV 209.217.195.150 (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and dispute it then. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with edits is fine. Please don't describe them as vandalism, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks of the kind exhibited in your contributions under this IP address are highly undesirable, the more so if, as it appears, you use shifting IP addresses.JQ (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. I will probably continue to describe the arbitrary deletion of reliability sourced information on little more grounds than dislike of the information as "vandalism". -- RLV 209.217.195.157 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated." Do you think a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would be justified and an admin wouldn't do something about you instead if you raised one? If not then you should not say an edit is vandalism. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That begs the question of whether Wikipedia's administrators are likely to enforce Wikipedia's stated policies. Is the cumulative effect of deliberate actions that one might treat as made out of ignorance (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Keynesian_economics&diff=326879844&oldid=326742987) to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? Philip Mirowski: "It is not so much that [Wikipedia's editors] are sometimes wrong, as it is more distressing that they seem to have no way of knowing when and if they have ever gotten it right." -- RLV 209.217.195.120 (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has to be an obviously deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Changes due to 'ignorance' don't count. Dmcq (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look up Begging the question, RLV :-). More generally, there are plenty of other online activities to contribute to if you don't like the way Wikipedia works. Or, you could try and change the policies. But attacking other editors (particularly those well-known as serious contributors like LK) as ignorant vandals because their edits don't suit your POV is a good step on the way to getting banned, or, in your case, to getting an IP block. Please stop this. JQ (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think JQ's comment misrepresents my comments. -- RLV 209.217.195.181 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Veblen's involvement in Technocracy Inc. cannot be proved and is unimportant to his career. His influence of Technocracy is also trivial compared with his overall career. Whether the Technocracy aspect is mentioned as a minor aspect of Veblen's life or omitted altogether it is a waste of time to devote so much time to this discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer-review journals

I think the recent events with regard to the hacked e-mails on the global warming debate reaffirms my hesitation with using peer-review journals as a limiting factor for weight. When one controls the peer-review process or controls research, a bias can be introduced. Morphh ^(talk) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

When interviewed by NPR, some of the climatologists sought to vindicate their imposition of bias based upon the policy implications of allowing non-“consensus” views to be published. Of courxe, the social sciences are typically even more entangled with policy implications. —SlamDiego_←T 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So have you finished your hesitating? Wikipedia is not in the job of WP:Original research. Whatever about your feelings bout bias what better basis do you have without indulging in original research?. Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He suggested that all “reliable” sources should be counted in weight. The proposition tha academic and peer-reviewed journals should not be given peculiar weight is no more based in “original research” than the proposition that they should. —SlamDiego_←T 00:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Slam, if you want to post comments supporting irrationality, you should post them to RS. A problem with irrationality however is how to decide which irrational view to accept. Is the world flat or is it hollow? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'm supporting here is following actual Wikipedia policy, which doesn't confine its notion of “reliable” sources to peer-reviewed and academic sources, and which establishes its criteria for weighting in terms of “reliable” sources in general, instead of just in terms of peer-reviewed and academic sources. Unfortunately, confining ourselves to Wikipedia's notion of “reliable” sources or even to some subset thereof, such as peer-reviewed and academic journals won't exclude irrationality, but actual rationality is amongst the various things that Wikipedia isn't “about”. Your snideness helps nothing except perhaps a few spleens. —SlamDiego_←T 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean Dmcq, I'm not talking about OR. I was referring to the past discussions regarding redefining weight for economics articles to be based on a subset or reliable sources (academia and peer-review). I was just saying that these publications can also be biased. This has nothing to do with OR. It just reaffirms the Wikipedia standard for weight on RS is the proper one, not the subset of RS that was attempted here. Morphh ^(talk) 2:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Slam, if you want to attack the rational tradition in western civilization, this is not the page to do so. Go to RS or V not the economics page. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking the rational tradition, nor is this the place to explain your misunderstanding of rationality or of Western tradition. Again: What I'm supporting here is following actual Wikipedia policy, which doesn't confine its notion of “reliable” sources to peer-reviewed and academic sources, and which establishes its criteria for weighting in terms of “reliable” sources in general, instead of just in terms of peer-reviewed and academic sources. Unfortunately, confining ourselves to Wikipedia's notion of “reliable” sources or even to some subset thereof, such as peer-reviewed and academic journals won't exclude irrationality, but actual rationality is amongst the various things that Wikipedia isn't “about”. Your snideness helps nothing except perhaps a few spleens. —SlamDiego_←T 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the alternative to mainstream academic views? Do you think that Rupert Murdoch should be given equal weight with scientists at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and MIT? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are innumerable alternatives to mainstream academic views, some of which alternatives would be more rational. But what I would chose to be Wikipedia policy is irrelevant here. Actual Wikipedia policy restricts us to “reliable” sources, doesn't confine its notion of “reliable” sources to peer-reviewed and academic sources, and establishes its criteria for weighting in terms of “reliable” sources in general, instead of just in terms of peer-reviewed and academic sources. —SlamDiego_←T 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces, weight is determined by NPOV WP:WEIGHT policy. The prior discussion was if this economics project should deviate from the core policy and narrow weight based on a subset of reliable sources. My point was that the broader policy helps avoid POV issues that could be introduced by using a subset of reliable sources for weight. Morphh ^(talk) 3:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Much as History is now limited by MILMOS's Sources section, and MEDRS governs medical articles, it would be useful to advance a set of principles on weighting and reliability in specific connection to Economics articles. One issue is that multiple, in Featured Article terms, High Quality Reliable Sources traditions exist, which dispute the correctness of each other. A secondary problem is that in its 200 year life academic economics has gone through a considerable number of large scale transformations in what the most commonly accepted disciplinary standards of proof or what an appropriate object for research is. A third problem, is that dominant Western traditions seek to denigrate the research programs of other Western traditions, or attempt to expunge the 60 year existence of Eastern European research programmes. Claiming that general policy is sufficient is simply not true: the extent of snide bickering from adherents here demonstrates that claims for or against current general policy are actually concealing real beliefs about the appropriate basis for source weighting in economics.

Parties should get their biases out in the open, clearly, cleanly, then inspect the principles behind their proposed real RS criteria or weighting criteria, and then work towards consensus. As an example:

Given the variety of academic traditions within economics which are mutually irreconcilable, and the presence of at least two major non-academic economic traditions which are known for having internally coherent standards of debate; weighting from a limited literature survey is simply unacceptable. Attempts to locate generalised reviews of the object in question from multiple traditions, in the form of textbooks, major review articles, or reviews within monographs or major reports should be conducted. These items should endeavour to be of A*, A or B ratings in terms of the Excellence for Research in Australia schema, ie, the equivalent of respectable field relevant journals (including here, respectable non-academic groups with a reputation for research integrity equivalent at least to second string peer reviewed journals). An example of applying this in practice: the UK SWP's academic grade publications would be in, their newspaper would be out. The IWW's economic theory up to the 1930s would be in, the current IWW would be out. Weighting should then proceed on the basis of argument of contribution by a major economic tradition to the advancement of the object of analysis. Marxist PE would be relevant to, for example, the Transformation Problem. It would be irrelevant to marginal price.

The implicit reasoning behind the above contribution is that the criteria for weighting inclusion is level of scholarly contribution, standards of scholarly behaviour, and relevance of scholarly contribution. It recognises that scholarly contributions to economics occur outside of the University system and publication mode; but attempts to equate scholarlyness in terms of the University system of ranking research outputs, because such a system of ranking research outputs exists in the University system, but recognises equivalence as the basis, not conformance. Research contributions are considered in a binary fashion: all contributions meeting a ERA B equivalent are in, all those not meeting a B equivalent are out. This would act to define a specific ECONRS standard of what a ECONRS source is, and follows the examples at MILMOS#sources and MEDRS, as well as the newly established HQRS standard at FAC. The proposal is agnostic as to political or theoretical content, and is designed to deal with the fact of mutually irreconcilable objects of interest and methods of proof within the community interested in economic interactions in a scholarly mode.

(Obviously the ERA criteria is Australia specific, I'm including it as an example of a ranking schema for quality, not as a proposed final criteria. ERA B rankings are equivalent to a low to very low impact academic journal. The scholarly non academic equivalent would be a major thinker within a think-tank or party political environment who issues 5000 word plus reports on research findings).

I suspect that putting forward each of our own concepts clearly, and arguing the basis behind our concepts explicitly, as above, would assist the perennial Economics sourcing and weighting issue to move forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In the past, the claim for what are in fact extensions to policy has been that they are no such thing, but merely expressions of existing policy. I'm not sure how the same parties could now defend those extensions with a claim that general policy is insufficient, as an admission of past disingenuousness or marked foolishness would be implicit in such an argument. But, beginning prior to the claim that these extensions were just expressions of general policy, and occasionally even as my query were being treated as a irrelevancy, I asked for empirical support for claims of greater reliability. None has been forthcoming. —SlamDiego_←T 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy does not need justification by reference to studies. The greater reliability statement is part of consensus. If someone does want to go and provide a justification for it that would be in someplace like the talk page or some essay and not the policy, its real justification for being included is consensus. Weight should be based on all reliable sources and quite rightly too. Neutral point of view though should be based on the most reliable sources which is peer reviewed etc. If most of the source say people have been abducted by aliens then that should be reported prominently and treated with the respect it deserves which is low according to peer reviewed sources. Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo argues that the general policy is not sufficient; this may or may not be true, but if it is true then one is not talking abiding by existing policy but about extending or otherwise modifying it. The relevant consensus of Wikipedia is not some view of this or that clique, but of the whole community. Morphh began with an argument that weight should not be determined only by peer-reviewed and academic sources but by all “reliable” sources, and you mocked him as somehow thus supporting “original research”. Now you're declaring “Weight should be based on all reliable sources and quite rightly too.” The danger of your just making it up as you go along is that you do things like that. BTW, reliable source do report abduction by aliens (eg [8]), but I suppose that you actually mean to refer to extraterrestrials. Indeed, if the greatest share of “reliable” sources claimed that extraterrestrials made a regular habit of kidnapping people, this view would have to be given the most prominence (because, again, rationality is not one of the things that Wikipedia is “about”); but the alternative view should not be presented only through the lens of the dominant view. And, as I have noted before, actual policy does not tell us which sources amongst “reliable” sources on economics are more “reliable” than other “reliable” sources; hence my return to the question of empirical evidence for relative reliability. —SlamDiego_←T 13:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He talked about bias and I was talking about bias. If you check WP:WEIGHT you will see that neutral point of view is ensured by checking the 'best and most reputable authoritative sources'. I'm all for checking non academic sources for weight and have argued for that but that doesn't mean that all sources should be treated as having equal validity. As to economics there are so many books and papers and journals produced by so many people never mind all the newspaper articles and non-academics who are so important in economics that I think a straightforward basis like WP:WEIGHT just gets bogged down in a morass of counting and you have to apply some other criteria as well. If the economics project comes to some agreement about standards I'm pretty certain it could be made into a Wikipedia wide guideline with very little trouble so you needn't worry about that. If I sounded as if I was mocking I'm sorry about that. I saw myself as being a little short about what seemed to me a dismissal of the scientific method because of a perceived scandal. It would be good to see what alternative people have to academic research if they are going to talk about academic bias. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Again: Morphh began with an argument that weight should not be determined only by peer-reviewed and academic sources but by all “reliable” sources, and you mocked him as somehow thus supporting “original research”. Now you're declaring “Weight should be based on all reliable sources and quite rightly too.” If you want “to apply some other criteria as well” that is going beyond existing policy, and so it needs a defense beyond that of policy. Again, I have raised the question of an empirical foundation for such an extension. Possibly you or some party could persuade the community to accept a declaration about ostensibly more reliable sources without an empirical foundation (something that I would consider patently irrational), but that at least hasn't happened yet, and I certainly wouldn't want to see it happen. As to apologies and excuses to Morphh for your response to him, they might be better placed in a comment more directly to him, rather than to me. But Morphh quite obviously wasn't dismissing scientific method; he was expressing caution at the presumption that academic and peer-reviewed journals would do a sufficiently good job of abiding by that method. —SlamDiego_←T 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not apologise for what I said and there was no contradiction between what I said there or to Morphh. I have tried to explain myself carefully but sometimes people are unable to communicate properly with each other. If you have trouble figuring out what I have said please rephrase rather than repeating and identify the problem area. Dmcq (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

When you wrote “If I sounded as if I was mocking I'm sorry about that.” that would constitute an apology; if you're withdrawing it, as not having intended to apologize, that's no skin off my nose. There's a very plain contradiction in what you said, no matter what you intended to say. If there was a communication problem here, it wasn't on the part of Morphh or mine, it was on your part; there's a huge disconnection between what each of us have actually said and what you'd interpret each of us as having said. I have no trouble figuring out what you've said; you apparently have trouble accepting what you've said. If you intended to say something else, the need for rephrasing is on your part, not on mine. —SlamDiego_←T 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

An apology is according to the dictionary I just looked up "an admission of error with an expression of regret". I have put an expression of regret on Morphh's talk page because you have identified that they might take what I said as mocker.y I have said that no such thing was intended, explained what I meant, and said I'm sorry if offence was taken. That is not saying I made an error in what I said. Regret is not apology. I don't know on what basis you speak for Morphh. Morphh talked about bias as well as weight. WP:Weight says that all reliable sources should be taken into account but it also says the most reliable sources should be used for assessing neutral point of view. Reliable sources says the most reliable sources are peer reviewed sources etc where available. Does that clear up your problem about contradictions? Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as the introduction of the word “apology” to this discussion was by me, you don't get to find one of its multiple definitions, assert that what you did does not fit that definition, and then claim that I was mistaken in my use of it. Further, if you won't see that you made an error, that's still no skin off my nose. WP:RS does not say that peer-reviewed and academic sources are the most reliable wherever available, nor does it even say or logically imply that they are usually the most reliable in economics. I've already clearly noted the difference between what it actually says and what some people wish that it said. And, if-and-when some editor is attacked for editing contrary to misrepresented policy, that editor will be able to avail him- or herself (at an RfArb or wherever) not only of the explanation as such, but of the point that the explanation was already presented. —SlamDiego_←T 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why reference those definitions, they look pretty similar to what I was looking at and using. As to your interpretation of 'usually' you are misunderstanding policy if you think it is saying anything about truth. WP:Policy is a description of the consensus of editors and that describes how you should normally act on wikipedia. It does not say those are usually the most reliable in economics - it says you should usually treat them as the most reliable on wikipedia. If you don't other editors are quite within their rights to query you and expect a good answer. And saying oh it's economics it doesn't cover economics is not a good answer. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand the distinctions between what those definitions actually say and the one that you present, then I suggest that you find someone more generous than I to explain the differences to you. I'm not misunderstanding policy; your earlier claim was “Reliable sources says the most reliable sources are peer reviewed sources etc where available.”, which claim is also in keeping with what some other editors here have said, but not in keeping with what policy actually says. Part of your newer claim, that one should be prepared to make a case for the reliability of whatever source one uses, is perfectly fine with me, though it won't bring joy to the hearts of others who have been making the earlier claim. What appears to be the other part, that across any subject peer-reviewed and academic sources should have some presumption of superiority, doesn't follow from actual policy. And I've already noted the historical problem with intellectual fashions in the social sciences, and noted more of the underlying explanation in my remark to Morphh: When a subject has policy implications this acts to undermine the practice of scientific method. Unless someone can make a decent case that, nonetheless, academic and peer-reviewed publications manage to be better than other “reliable” sources, no one is bound to abide by such a presumption. (If someone can make the empirical case, then all of the scientists around here will respect it.) —SlamDiego_←T 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

People are entitled to change their minds or say different things with time. However in the cases you state I have not. Your understanding of what I have said is wrong. As to your understanding of reliable sources perhaps you should go to WT:RS and convince the other editors there that the wording that you have to keep arguing about should be changed. Perhaps editors misunderstand what they really mean when they write things and what they write as interpreted by you is what their consensus really is. And I'd like to add that I do not like you saying that I mean another thing and have changed my mind when I haven't and have said I haven't. I know we have problems communicating with each other but that strikes me as a very definite incivility. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What you actually write is not self-consistent. Whether you are changing your mind or chronically misspeaking, any actual incivility here is yours, located in making those self-contradictory claims without acknowledging that inconsistency. As to WP:RS it doesn't say what you and others have claimed (and I have explained the difference exactly), and I don't need it to say what it already actually says in a new way different from what you claim; again, any attempt to have some editor sanctioned for failing to abide by these misrepresentations of policies is now quite foredoomed. —SlamDiego_←T 15:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You are able to see a great difference between the apology defines as "an admission of error with an expression of regret" and as "An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense" and yet seem unable to see any difference between an apology and an expression of regret or sorrow if somebody took a statement the way you said they might have. In that circumstance I am not surprised you have to argue with other people that a consensus is not what they think but what you think. I see no useful purpose in communicating again with you on this matter. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that you are able to note each and every definition of “apology” that appears in a dictionary listing, and yet you just grab at the first one as if it is the only one. In that context, I'm not surprised that your other arguments and interpretations involve such a great disconnection between what is actually said and what you insist has been said. In any case, I'm glad for your declaration that you're here going to stop trying to beat your very, very dead horse. —SlamDiego_←T 13:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You make good points Filefoo. For instance, MEDRS gives very clear outlines about what should be appropriate weight, and where to source scholarly consensus from. Perhaps such a formulation is not appropriate for economics. However, I wonder what would be the appropriate overall weighting 'rule-of-thumb' if we could use if we do not use statements made by professional bodies (in our case the AEA, Fed, NBER, etc), and prominence in textbooks and academic handbooks as guiding principles. We need some policy otherwise we will constantly be arguing about weight.

IMO, we get two major things wrong. Austrian school theories receive more weight here (as on other internet fora) than they receive in any other 'space' for discussions of economics. 'Socialist' viewpoints receive less weight here than it receives in 'real world' discussions of economics, both in universities and outside universities. I think this reflects the current biases of US internet users. If we could 'add up' prominence in all reliable sources (including non-academic sources), I believe we would reach this same conclusion. However, we can't add up sources, there are too many. So a convenient short-cut, is to just refer to textbooks, academic handbooks, or recent survey articles in the top peer-reviewed journals. But if we don't use such a short-cut, what could we use instead? LK (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fred Lee demonstrates (Cambridge Journal of Economics, V 31 (2007): pp. 309-325) that the Research Assessment Exercise predictably eliminates heterodox non-mainstream economists from British universities. It would not surprise me if something equally biased was going on in Australia. Since economics is a contested subject, no non-contested list of top peer-reviewed journals can exist. Furthermore, academic sources about economics is not confined to texts produced in economics departments or published in economics journals. For example, the disciplines of the history, sociology, and philosophy of science could be drawn upon. Likewise, I would guess that sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and other social scientists have some published opinions on economics. -- RLV 209.217.195.127 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My question stands. Given that we cannot 'add up' sources, apart from textbooks, academic handbooks, and recent survey articles, what other 'rule of thumb' can be used to determine when consensus exists in the academic community, what is the consensus view, and what are notable viewpoints if consensus does not exist? LK (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is weight in particular, rather than simple “notability” (which is distinct form being on some Top Ten list) that will be the problem. And one should not presume that there is going to be an answer. Some members of each significant camp of editors have sought to skew presentation. Others have been sufficiently ignorant and misinformed as not to know when they are skewing it, and some of these are unwilling subsequently to admit error. —206.207.225.73 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that there are no usable rules to use when deciding issues of weight apart from looking at university textbooks, academic reference books, and survey articles. LK (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some attempt has been made to study the phenomenom of weight in the top economic journals. In [/Axarloglou and Theoharakis (2003)] , the authors find that:

"New Keynesians favor journals that publish research with emphasis on market imperfections and rigidities, such as the Quarterly Journal of economics, the Economic journal, the Brookings Paper or the Journal of Money Credit and Banking. Neoclassicist, on the other hand, favor the top six journals in our ranking and also journals that publish research based on the perfect operation of the market mechanism (such as the Journal of Monetary Economics or the International Economic Review). Post Keynesians have less of an appreciation for journals that publish research with an emphasis on the efficient operation of the markets, such as the Journal of Political Economy or the Journal of Finance. Finally, institutionalists favor more non-technical journals (i.e. The Journal of Economic Literature, or the Journal of Economic Perspectives), and less mostly technical journals (e.g. Econometrica and the Review of Economic Studies).--Forich (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Skousen

There is a discussion at Talk:Classical liberalism#Unacceptable source about whether Mark Skousen's The Making of Modern Economics is a good source. It seems to me that the author has highly controversial views, is not a noted economist and his book was not published by an academic press. I would appreciate any comments in the article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Grand supercycle

There is talk at WT:MATH about articles marked as essays. Grand supercycle came up, but the mathies there didn't know what to do with it. Unfortunately I don't know anything about the topic, so I thought I'd mention it here. Anyone want to either clean it up or remove the essay tag? (Many of the articles at WT:MATH were incorrectly tagged.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Concept from a fringe theory that currently has relatively few adherents. Probably notable, but what else can we do with it except tag and forget? LK (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's still a significant Elliot wave contingent among technical traders, I don't know this concept though. I think I'll remove the "essay" tag. Like I say, I don't really know it, but it looks more article than essay to me. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (pre-1911) FAC

I believe this is of interest to the wikiproject.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith

The people of University of Oxford's WikiProject have rated the article as C-Class, see here. I thought we were supposed to drive it to Featured Article status, what happened? --Forich (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for help: Production-possibility frontier, particularly JSTORers

I've been re-organising, rewriting and re-imaging the article, and I'm reasonably happy with it at the moment. Most of it is within my level of expertise (A-level, ages 16-18), and, arguably, for a general purpose encyclopaedia, this is the way it should be. Now I'm coming to reference the thing, I could do with a bit of help with the "Interpretation" section, and some of the "Shape" section. The references originally used (and I have actually added very little new content) were not inline, and cite publications I have no access to, so now trying to inline-ify them is a problem. Any help appreciated. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for good article status. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Jarry did a great job tidying up the PPF article, unfortunately neither of us have access to reliable sources for the final section of the article. I have it left on hold at the moment in GAN, if somebody could give it a second reading and cite the required paragraphs the article could pass to GA. It is an important economic topic and would be a nice addition to the GA collection. If nothing happens in a few days I will have to regretfully fail it. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Market discipline

Please could someone take a look at Market discipline ? It reads like an essay, but I don't know enough about the topic to clean it up. thisisace (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for more eyes

I have recently greatly expanded Economy of Queensland. As economics is not a subject in which I am knowledgeable it would be good if some economically minded editors had a look and offered some suggestions on how to improve this article to B class. In particular what is currently omitted? - Shiftchange (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of wealth

I've just come across the article Distribution of wealth... and ye gods it's awful. Its citation of Shakespeare is actually one of the lesser things wrong with it! If anyone wants to have a go at substantially improving it... Rd232 ^talk 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything can be done. I made some extensive edits, but I think much more is needed -- or else the article should go. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Updating Economics Section in Chile

Hello there! The economics section within the article of Chile is extremely outdated. A lot of juicy and interesting things have happened this last year, and now peaking. If anyone is interested in updating this subject from a professional and objective POV, that would be very much appreciataed! Thank you! :) --Neon Sky (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Crowd funding and mass funding

A merge has been proposed between mass funding and crowd funding. Are these distinct concepts? Input would be welcome at Talk:Crowd funding#Suggested merges. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

if i work 3 month can i get unemployment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.192.218 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative fund

Can someone look at the Quantitative fund article? I'm not sure if the topic is notable, and the article needs better referencing if it is to be kept. I know nothing of economics, but I think this article sounds a bit promotional. Regards, PDCook (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Very badly written article, badly in need of a cleanup, but a valid topic in Finance. There are various funds from various fund houses that self-identify as quantitative funds. I've added a Finance tag and batted it over to them, as it's a topic more in their field than in ours. LK (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. PDCook (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

19th Century Economists Factors of Production

In the first paragraph the article contains this text: "To 19th century economists, the factors of production were land (natural resources, gifts from nature), labor (the ability to work), and capital goods (human-made tools and equipment). Recent textbooks have added entrepreneurship and "human capital" (labor's education and skills)VLP."

There is an implication that 19th century economists and those preceding them did not account for education and skills in the productive capacity of labor. This is not accurate. Adam Smith, an 18th Century economist, considered education and skill as an integral part of the productive value of labor as the following two quotes will show.

"When any expensive machine is erected, the extraordinary work to be performed by it before it is worn out, it must be expected, will replace the capital laid out upon it, with at least the ordinary profits. A man educated at the expense of much labour and time to any of those employments which require extraordinary dexterity and skill, may be compared to one of those expensive machines. The work which he learns to perform, it must be expected, over and above the usual wages of common labour, will replace to him the whole expense of his education, with at least the ordinary profits of an equally valuable capital. It must do this too in a reasonable time, regard being had to the very uncertain duration of human life, in the same manner as to the more certain duration of the machine." Book I, Chapter 10.

"Equal quantities of labour, at all times and places, may be said to be of equal value to the labourer. In his ordinary state of health, strength, and spirits ; in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness. The price which he pays must always be the same, whatever may be the quantity of goods which he receives in return for it." Book I, Chapter 5. --Billgkohl (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi. Several weeks ago I posted an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies for the Effects of the 2008-2010 automotive industry crisis on the United States article, and was just wondering, as its only a few days shy of a month now, how many people are active at this project? Is the lack of any response because that article is so long and confused or because there's nobody here really active on that RfC page? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The "Sectoral Financial Balance" analysis associated with Minsky/Keynes originally and currently with Wynne Godley, Randall Wray, Levy College and U Kansas: any interest / expertise in adding this to Wikipedia? Given the massive disagreements apparent at present amongst economists regarding whether to continue to run fiscal deficits to support the economy or whether to prioritise balancing govt budgets (see the FT letters page last week), I think a page on SFB would be a useful contribution - eg this link: http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/07/sector-financial-balances-model-of_26.html. I note that the [Twin deficit hypothesis] page is one of the few applications in Wikipedia of the standard equations involving S - I, G - T and X - M; and it's pretty unsophisticated and uncontextualised stuff. Anders Anderchr (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Goods

Goods are objects with a physical prescence. There are free goods and economic goods. Free goods are plentiful and have no cost. while economic goods are scarce and therefore, have a cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.190.52 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is currently active at WikiProject Economics

How many members does WikiProject Economics have, and how many are actively responding to questions at this page or the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies? The "Participants" section of the project page has no names; my guess is zero? Why is there an RfC specific to Economy, trade and companies if it's run by a bot and nobody is monitoring anything? Abrazame(talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you click on Category:WikiProject_Economics_participants, you'll see that over a hundred people have signed up. We're around, but I'm guessing few of us are commenting on RfCs for various reasons (busy, lack of interest in the topic). That article is mammoth and I don't have the time to dig into it. II | (t -c) 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise... Morphh ^(talk) 3:17, 02 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! I don't blame you for not wanting to tackle that huge article. However, respectfully, I do blame this project en masse for not making any comment whatsoever in a month.

To the specific issue, given your response, I'm going to recommend that the "Effects..." article be deleted. It is irresponsible to keep an article like that for a month much less more than a year. It doesn't even approach its subject as its title claims it will, and of course is just a big POV coatrack.

On the general issue, don't misunderstand: I know we all have lives, nobody gets paid for this, and some articles are a lot easier and more fun to polish up than others. I have a hard time getting back to things around here in a timely fashion. So if, as you say, it's an issue of not having the time at the moment, then RfCs there should not be closed by a bot automatically after 30 days. If there are over a hundred people here, then more than one actual live person should have to take a glance at a request and close it manually with a reason, as in "request is unfounded" or "nominate(d) for AfD" or whatever the project member's informed perspective may be. There should be some counter, though, ticking off the days, so that unless it's the project's intention never to handle the issue, that they are aware this has been waiting. Or, what about an opportunity for project members to rate the article on how much work they think it needs to fix, whether or not they intend to volunteer to do that work. This has the effect of letting the nominator know whether anybody has glanced at it, as well as letting readers and editors and project members alike know just how big of a problem the RfC is. After all, if, as in the "Effects" example, the result will be the nominator taking it to AfD, why not take the minute or two to suggest that, rather than leaving it to others — who are likely to be less knowledgeable about economics, trade and companies — to determine whether it's a problem and whether that problem is likely to ever be fixed. In other words, if it should remain, then who's going to fix it? And if it should go, why not help that process by recommending that?

Again, this is a friendly complaint/suggestion on reforming the way a specialized RfC page is presented and run in general, and not merely about the auto article issue. Best, Abrazame(talk) 06:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually part of the group that got them to put the "human-edited" (manual) RfC section put back in, but the fact is that these get overloaded because they don't get taken care of. We probably should split things into responsibilities so we make sure certain things get done - maybe we should have an "active" membership for people who pledge to do a certain amount of routine work, including Requests for Comment, every month. II | (t - c) 08:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the project, but I have no particular interest in business applications; I do more of axiomatic economics. CRGreathouse (t |c) 07:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started the long path towards something like that - see below (under "Census"). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous?Discuss.]} 10:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Auction theory

Anyone interested in working on Category:Auction theory? It could really use some work, but it's too broad for one person.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for help on organizing the category, or on the article Auction theory? Gary King (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Working on articles in the category (including but not limited to Auction theory) and adding new articles. I've been looking up some interesting impossibility results of Jehiel et. al. recently, and I noticed that not only were they not in Wikipedia, but most of the surrounding work was either missing or incomplete.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dweller/Dweller's Lungs Economics

User:SteveBaker has picked up the baton at this essay and presented some challenging issues that are probably not at all revolutionary in the noble, yet mysterious field of Economics.

I'm sure I speak for both of us when I invite any actual economists who profess to understand wiggly red and blue curves without numbered axes, to pop along and explain to us! Go easy - I'm a thickie.--Dweller (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Marginalism, Marginal Utility, Marginal Use

Many have complained about the incomprehensibility of the entries on Marginalism, Marginal utility, and perhaps Marginal use. I think that they exhibit a combination of undue weight, original research, and synthesis. This may be because one editor acts as if he owns them, even to the point of insisting on some quaint Edwardian spelling. He also insists that the introduction should begin with what he considers the most general concept, which he identifies with an unrecognizable mainstream approach and his own interpretation of an article on Austrian theory. In particular, no citation can be given for the statement "Under the mainstream assumptions, the marginal utility of a good or service is the posited quantified change in utility obtained by increasing or decreasing use of that good or service." (This issue has already been discussed in the context of the entry on the Austrian school, which requires continual watching.) Furthermore, I'd like to see some justification for the weight given to the particular approaches to utility theory in these articles. I have my own opinion on what generalizations of utility theory exist in the literature, which I've written up. -- RLV 209.217.195.133(talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert, there isn't any violation of WP:SYNTH in those articles. Disturbance at the articles “Marginalism” and “Marginal utility” revolves around the fact that they are written with full generality, treating the special case of the neoclassical conception as just that (it is treated respectfully, but not confused with the general notion), whereäs most people have only been exposed to that notion, as if it were the general notion. So people see the generality as needless circumlocution or some-such.

Now, I'm quite sure that it's possible to form a mobocracy here, and pervert these articles just as others have been perverted. It simply doesn't pay to get emotionally invested in getting Wikipedia articles to conform to stated policy, let alone to the standards of genuine scientific discourse; but I none-the-less hope that these particular articles won't join the parade of perversion.

BTW, part of the foundation of your claim of synthesis is that you've made a surprising, fundamental mathematical error, confusing quantification with something such as differentiability. There is absolutely no need for an assumption of continuity to get quantification (there's plenty of discrete mathematics concerned with arithmetic), and the synthesis here is whatever chain of error leads you to think as much. —SlamDiego_←T 03:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Quantification, as with quantified change, is part of SlamDiego's private language. He cannot provide a citation from a reliable source. The articles suffer from a combination of undue weight, original research, and synthesis. So does the Marginal concepts article. -- RLV 209.217.195.199 (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

People, if we read the suggestions made by Nils von Barth here, THEN we can reach an agreement on how to solve problems of mainstream vs heterodox views on economic topics. Can we work on that as a first objective?

Regarding the specific case of Marginal Utility, I've written some comments here. The "regular" terminology in consumer economics is confusing. If you read the discussions held in Econometrica, Economic Journal, American Economic Review, and the Review of Economic Studies in the 50's and 60's (see the references here, you could understand that the use of alternate terms is not necessarily an attempt to push "private language", it's just a way to avoid ambiguity. --Forich (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. I happen to think of the distinction between ordinal and cardinal scales as exemplified by measurement scale levels, as defined in measurement theory. Part of the problem with these articles is weight. One way of generalizing utility theory is to consider choices out of menus. You can see that this is a generalization since a preference relation can only be defined for some choice functions. Why should the entry on, say, marginal utility discuss an Austrian redefinition of marginal utility as marginal use, but not this generalization based on choices from menus? This is a question of weight. Who can tell what SlamDiego is talking about with these ill-phrased and unfounded comments on "mathematical error" above and on some "synthesizing claim" below? -- RLV 209.217.195.150 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is one thing to propose that an article on marginal utility deal with marginal utility at the highest level of generality, and quite another to propose that it transcend its purported subject with its generalizations. Preference theory is more general that utility theory, and choice theory is more general still, but the articles in question are about marginal utility. Indeed, Wikipedia needs articles on these more general topics, but “Marginalism” and “Marginal utility” are not properly those articles.

What would be labelled an “ordinal” scale in the taxonomic system that Robert favors still imputes more restrictive mathematical properties than some varieties of marginalism do to utility.

It was and remains plainly an error for Robert to have insisted that quantification assumed continuity. —SlamDiego_←T 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Like others, I don't accept that an old Austrian-school redefinition of marginal utility is a more general definition. Like so much else that SlamDiego writes, such a claim seems to be a mixture of original research and synthesis. One might think that SlamDiego's unwillingness to state in public language what is "plainly an error" reflects an awareness at some level of his consciousness that he is bullshiting. Certainly the relationship between his comments and improving an article is unclear. But I find much of his commentary equally unclear. -- RLV209.217.195.180 (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert, you can refuse to accept almost anything, but regardless of what you refuse to accept, some marginalists don't ascribe any degree of quantification to utility. I've put things pretty plainly here, and elaborated more elsewhere. When it is assumed that arithmetic can be meaningfully applied at all to utility (as when marginal utility is an arithmetic difference), that restricts the allowable orderings more than do some marginalist theories. The least restrictive notion is by definition the most general. The only violation of WP:SYNTH has been located in your odd ideas about quantification, and your synthesis itself has been quite wrong. —SlamDiego_←T 02:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego's claims, like, for instance, statements in the marginal utility article, are neither plain nor sourced. Since he insists on his own private language, one cannot even tell what supposed ideas of mine he thinks "odd" and "quite wrong". -- RLV 209.217.195.188 (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the articles in question are heavily sourced. There's no private language here; your claim about continuity was just perfectly wrong. We wouldn't even need continuity amongst the strong assumptions necessary for claiming that interpersonal comparisons of utility were meaningful. —SlamDiego_←T 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles in question do not have sources that say what SlamDiego says they say. I have no idea what SlamDiego takes "my claim about continuity" to have been. If he cannot state such a claim, I see no reason why anybody should think it was "just perfectly wrong". Of course, I don't see what the rightness or wrongness of whatever claim SlamDiego thinks he is talking about has to do with improving any article. The comment about "interpersonal comparisons of utility" seems to be further distractions from the combinations of undue weight, original research, and synthesis in, say, the article on marginal utility. -- RLV 209.217.195.147 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I question whether you actually recognize “what SlamDiego says they say” (as opposed to what I say about utility more generally), and note again that the articles in question are heavily sourced. As to what is said outside of article space, it isn't subject to the same sourcing requirements. (And I certainly don't notice a lot of footnotes in your comments.) —SlamDiego_←T 20:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

While Forich is quite correct that the standard terminology can be confusing, for my part, in speaking of quantification, I'm just using plain English, rather that the private language of which Robert accuses me.

As pretty much everyone here knows, the mainstream notion of a utility function is one in which quantities ascribed by a function

u\left(~\right)

to objects of preference have a relationship

x\succ y\Leftrightarrow u\left(x\right)>u\left(y\right)

(Sources abound, in the form of intermediate and graduate texts of microeconomics. Beside me happens to be a copy of the Palgrave Utility and Probability, with Black's article “Utility”.)

However, there are marginalists schools of thought which do not ascribe any quantification whatsoever to utility, not even one that has the very weak restrictions imposed by the relationship above. So the articles “Marginalism” and “Marginal utility” need to avoid defining “utility” and “marginal utility” spuriously, while they also need (as they do) to note that the mainstreammakes such restriction (and that it typically goes further to allow differentiability).

Robert will simply have to explain his odd, incorrect, and synthesizing claim about continuity in some other manner. —SlamDiego_←T 19:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me RLV, let me ask you ¿are you suggesting that we give, say, 90% weight to defining Marginal Utility as the partial derivative of a utility function, and 10% to the definition of other theories of marginalism? And your justification, if I understand correctly, is that:

i) those other theories are old.

ii) Economic language is right and "public", as opposed to everyday speech language which is wrong and private. By economic language you seem to be referring to the axiomatic language of graduate microeconomic textbooks, and their definition of "rational behaviour" and "well-behaved" functions. Is this right?

iii) If we accept that the Austrian definition is the more general of all, we are implying that it is not outdated and it would give it a weigth greater than the deserved one, say 10%. Is this right?--Forich (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand myself to have said any of the above. I have pointed out that many have found a cluster of articles incomprehensible. And that those articles, going by a recent discussion on a Wikipedia Noticeboard, seem to exhibit a combination of undue weight, original research, and synthesis. I was interested what somebody knowledgable other than SlamDiego had to say about weights. In my opinion, the article on marginal utility should say somewhere up-front that mainstream economists typically do not currently find the concept of size comparisons of marginal utilities meaningful. The explanation might mention that such comparisons, e.g. du/dx(x1, y1) < du/dx(x2, y1), are not invariant under monotonically increasing transformations of utility functions. But perhaps some others might have the opinion that the [Neumann-Morgenstern] approach has grown with the importance of game theory.

By the way, I understand the arguments of vN-M utility functions to be more general than what I think of as the arguments of textbook utility functions. The arguments of textbook utility functions are a subset of the arguments of vN-M utility functions in which the lotteries have a single certain payout. This increased generality in arguments goes along with a restriction in the set of transformations over which the truth value of assertions about utility are invariant. -- RLV 209.217.195.147 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

“mainstream economists typically do not currently find the concept of size comparisons of marginal utilities meaningful” ←That's a questionable claim, and certainly one that would be difficult to find reliably sourced. What one can instead say is that the vast majority of mainstream economists recognize that further assumptions are entailed in going from the existence of a utility function as described above to one in which such comparisons are meaningful. A section or subsection explaining that point could be appropriate, though it might be best if most of its heavy lifting were handled by a distinct article. —SlamDiego_←T20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourced, for example: "Neoclassical utility theory is no less ordinal than [Rothbard's] own theory... A utility function is just a short-hand summary about an agent's ordinal preferences, not a claim about "utils." This is why it is often said that the utility function is uniquely defined up to a monotonic transformation. If one utility function represents an agent's preferences, then those preferences can also be represented by any other function that leaves the order unchanged." From Bryan Caplan (1999) "The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations", Southern Economic Journal (Apr). I noted I am not committed to claims about what is typical. -- RLV 209.217.195.183 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And, as noted, a neoclassical utility function maps to quantities (sourced multiply), whereas some schools of thought do not impute quantity to utility (sourced with McCulloch). Regardless of whether one is going to allege perversely that it violated WP:SYNTH to treat the second point as a rebuttal to Caplan, the second point is properly sourced.

However, while conitnuous preferences are necessary for continuous utility functions, neoclassical economics does not insist that all utility functions are continuous;your claim elsewhere is simply wrong. —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's not enough, I can probably find a source even from the 1950's saying the same thing. I have very little clue why SlamDiego believes a source would be hard to find. Perhaps, recent sources would be hard to find, since the concpet is pretty well established by now. BigK HeX (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to understand why I think that a source would be hard to find. While most mainstream economists are aware that the existence of utility functions which map to quantities isn'tsufficient for such comparison, most of them are also aware that there is a difference between insufficient support and necessary falsity, and a great many economists who recognize the insufficiency in question none-the-less support social policies that assume interpersonal comparability on some level (even if, as in the case of Abram Bergson, only in an aggregate with errors presumed to cancel-out). Robert's actual, quoted claim is simply far too strong. —SlamDiego_←T 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Utility functions which map to quantities" is part of SlamDiego's unsourced private language. I said nothing about necessary falsity above. "Meaningful" is a technical tem applied to propositions in measurement theory. See, I believe, F. S. Roberts, Measurement Theory (1979). The bit about whether some economists have any theoretical basis for their social policies is an irrelevancy that distracts from discussing the undue weight, original research, and synthesis in such articles as marginal utility. -- RLV 209.217.195.166 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My discourse here is neither unsourced nor private. Again, most intermediate and graduate microtextbooks present utility functions upon whose results one can perform arithmetic, a mathematics ofquantity (though perhaps you'd like to argue with Wikipedia's article and with most or all of the mathematical community on that). Meanwhile, if the propositions necessary for interpersonal comparison are accepted, then the comparisons of marginal utilities in question become meaningful in the technical sense you note, as well as in the lay-sense. Again, your actual, quoted claim about what mainstream economists believe is very strong, I doubt that it is true, and it would be difficult to source. What can be sourced is their recognition that propositions beyond the existence of a utility function, and even beyond the existence of a utility function that map to quantities, are necessary for meaningful comparison of marginal utilities. —SlamDiego_←T 07:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll help SlamDiego out. An important set of problems in the mainstream textbook treatment of utility theory revolve around the Slutsky conditions and the question of integrability. Mainstream economists treat utility as if it were the potential energy of a conservative vector field and as if expenditure were kinetic energy. The conservation law then suggests utility attains the same measurement scale level as money, that is, a cardinal ratio scale. This is contrary to what mainstream economists say. (Sources: Philip Mirowski, More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics. D. Wade Hands, "More Light on Integrability, Symmetry, and Utility as Potential Energy in Mirowski's Critical History".) -- RLV 209.217.195.177 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in need of help, nor is this particular issue aided by Mirowski's insights on the shortcomings of aping physical models. —SlamDiego_←T 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

oh, by the way, I'm sorry for quantifying the weights in my example above.--Forich (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I should point-out that the articles in question do not note that the Austrian School notion as such is more general; that has been labored on talk pages (by some on the apparent theory that, if the Austrian School said something first, then it must be wrong). They note that quantification is not a required assumption (explaining, however, that one gains tractability with that assumption), but are not concerned to promote any school per se. —SlamDiego_←T 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Without investigation of this particular instance, I'll note my experience to provide a bit of background for any interested parties here. I've seen where multiple editors have attempted to point out original research that SlamDiego has tried to insert into topics related to utility functions. SlamDiego seems to insist that (mainstream) utility theories are necessarily cardinal, and so far as I can tell (given SlamDiego's own arguments in the talk pages), this belief is somehow rooted in either one of two ideas (or possibly a strange mishmash of both):

SlamDiego has discovered that utility functions cannot be used for all preference orderings ... in this case, it would seem that he believes that "incomplete" ordinality somehow implies cardinality; or, possibly
SlamDiego takes the idea that utility functions allow the use of quantities, and then assigns some nebulous concept dubbed "weak quantification" to utility functions, and then attacks them as being necessarily cardinal.

I'm not sure why someone who touts a background in mathematics would fail to see that neither of the above seems sufficient to imply cardinality as a necessity, and even if he does believe that he has a convincing argument for his case, it is still blatantly obvious that such work would constitute original research, which would be far more appropriate to present elsewhere.

I'll try to weigh in on these specific matters, but if there are edits about "mathematical errors" then there looks to be a good chance that it's related to the same ideas from SlamDiego that multiple editors have contested in the noticeboards. In the noticeboard and talk page discussions, SlamDiego stood alone among the editors, with regards to including his edits which attempted to insert his characterizations of utility functions. BigK HeX (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, mischaracterizing the point of conflict. This is not about rejecting utility functions. It is about not making the mistake that all conceptions of utility are quantified.

Pretty much everyone knows that not all preferences can be handled by utility functions, but utility functions that (only) map to quantities handle fewer preferences than utility functions that do not impose that restriction.
It isn't that utility functions allow the use of quantities; it is that some notions require mapping to quantities and, in the case of marginal utility, define it as an arithmeticdifference, whereas this is not fully general.

The mathematical error noted above is in Robert's mistaking the well-established fact that neoclassical ecoonomists recognize that continuous preferences are need for continuous utility functions withthe proposition that “For a preference relation to be represented by a utility function, it must not only be a total order, it must also satisfy a certain continuity axiom.” Neoclassical economists are perfectly capable of working with discrete utility functions, though most certainly like differentianbility and so forth. —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The very next line in that diff is the sourced claim that "Lexicographic preferences are an example of a preference relation that cannot be represented by a utility function." Ilater amended the claim to the true statement, "Mainstream economists do know of preferences relations that cannot be represented by utility functions: e.g., lexicographic preferences when the space of commodities is a continuum." It is true that an assumption of continuity is not necessary for the existence of a utility function. The space of commodities might be discrete so that the quantities of commodities can only take on discrete values. But if the space of commodities is a continuum - that is, quantities of commodities can be any non-negative real numbers, then constraining a preference relation to be a complete order is not sufficient for the existence of a utility function. In general, then, representing a preference relation as a complete order is not sufficient for the existence of a utility function - any utility function, not just a continuous one. To rule out lexicographic preferences when the commodity space is a continuum, some additional assumption is necessary. I believe some work may have been done to relax my favorite continuity [9]. See Debreu (1959) for all this. What this has to do with any article other than a sad attempt at ad hominem is unclear. -- RLV 209.217.195.166 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you got some other point right doesn't refute the point that you absurdly said an axiom of preference continuity is required for the existence of a utility function. As I said, it's a fundamental mathematical error. And any notion that I am engaged in ad hominem for identifying actual error while you are not in your claims of synthesis, private language, &c, is simply laughable.—SlamDiego_←T 07:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why SlamDiego thinks he's identified a fundamental mathematical error is unclear and irrelevant, especially since, as noted, I corrected my misstatement without prompting. He is not identifying any errors in articles. On the other hand, the article on, for instance, marginal utility suffers from undue weight; original research; unsourced statements, including the use of unsourced and original jargon, such asquantified change and quantification; and synthesis. -- RLV 209.217.195.175 (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not irrelevant, and shouldn't been seen as unclear. Your critique of what you take to be my position is itself a synthesis, impaired by a couple of things, one of which is that you haven't really understood the subject. No one who understood the neoclassical utility function would have made that declaration in the first place (correcting it later or not); without that misunderstanding, the actual fact (that continuous utility implies continuous preferences) is perfectly irrelevant. Likewise, no one who understood that arithmetic is a mathematics of quantity (with virtually every treatment literally using the word “quantity” to describe it) and who understood that the whole point of neoclassical economics utility functions has been to be able to do at least a little bit of arithmetic would have trouble with the idea that it represents a quantification of utility. —SlamDiego_←T 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever seems right is right to SlamDiego here. Meanwhile the rest of us will just have to note he has yet to cite a reference that distinguishes between utility functions that map to quantities and utility functions that don't. I think editors should just go ahead and rewrite the articles I mentioned, such as marginal utility, removing the original research, undue weight, and synthesis as they go. --RLV 209.217.195.128 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've here cited one specific reference (and pointed you in the general direction of others) of utility function that map to quantities; as I said, “the whole point of neoclassical economics utility functions has been to be able to do at least a little bit of arithmetic”. The articles in question reference a source use a notion utility upon which arithmetic operation is mathematically impossible.—SlamDiego_←T 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems SlamDiego is presenting the same basic argument above ... though this time it seems he is using the concept in order to argue for some certain article structure. IMO, Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that the article should focus on whatever the prevalent (usually, mainstream) concept is, even if SlamDiego does believe that he has some rationale for attributing weight according to what he believe to be "the most general" concept of utility. My opinion is that any technical discussions should to attribute the most weight to the mainstream concept, (which generally revolves around utility functions); AFAIK, the Austrian notion is little referenced, and is generally only a small minority view, and if so, the Austrian notion should receive very little weight (even if it might be a "more general" concept). BigK HeX (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy certainly does not call for sacrificing the generality of an article in order to give dominant points of view greater weight. If the someone feels that the section of the article that covers quantified conceptions of utility needs expansion in order to have proper weight, that can certainly be discussed. (I suspect that such expansion would dissuade readers.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's a conflict over the article structure, do you have any rationales based on Wikipedia guidelines that would suggest that "generality" take precedence over theNPOV policy pillar? If not, then my "vote" would be to handle issues of weight in accordance with the policy that I'm aware of at Wikipedia:Undue#Undue_weight; this may mean that an editor's notion of generality has to take a backseat to the Undue weight policy. If there is a WP guideline suggesting that elaboration on perspectives outside of the most prominent understanding should get the heavier weight, then perhaps an RfC may be needed to find some measure of consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The alternative to generality here is to misrepresent verifiable fact. It would be quite analogous to rewriting the article on God not simply to report which are the most popular views, but to present those most popular views as the only possibilities. That flies in the face of the very first of the five pillars of policy. At present, the article makes it very plain what the mainstream notion of marginal utility is. (And I have acted to keep the mainstream view clearly reported in thelede of “Marginal utility”), and attempts to explain what that notion has to offer. If it would truly aid the reader, expansion of the section focussed on that notion may be in order, though I am inclined to believe that the article “Utility” should do most of the lifting on issues such as utility comparisons. —SlamDiego_←T 07:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I certainly did not suggest omitting anything, I have no idea how you've come up with your analogy about how the article would "present those most popular views as the only possibilities." My actual quote on the Austrian understanding of utility is, "the Austrian notion should receive very little weight" which implies inclusion, not omission. So, both the mainstream and the verifiable Austrian perspectives will be included.

I didn't see any WP policy argument as to why the prominent [i.e., "mainstream] perspective should be overshadowed, so in the case of the conflict between editors here, my position is that the articles need to be refocused, attributing weight by prominence, not generality (especially in any technical passages). BigK HeX (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

While you may not have intended to suggest such things, suggest them you did. And the deep problem here is that, because the neoclassical notions of utility and of marginal utility are distinguished by further restrictions, the only way to refocus to increase their weight in this case is by misrepresenting those restrictions as necessary. With its “ordinal” utility, neoclassical economics seeks desirable ordering properties. If we write about that order without claiming that the utility function has to have the restrictions of the neoclassical model to get those properties, then the discussion is general, and becomes indistinguishable from one on the Austrian School conception, regardless of whether the school is named at all. Again, the article repeatedly makes very plain what the mainstream conception is. —SlamDiego_←T 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me turn to another example of misinformation in the marginal utility article. It provides the supposedly - but probably incorrectly - sourced statement, "It has been common among economists to describe utility as corresponding to a measure, that is to say, as being quantifiable." For utility to be measureable, in this sense, the utility of the union of two disjoint sets of commodities must be the sum of the utilities of these sets. For example, the utility of a commodity bundle consisting of an apple and an orange must be the sum of the utility of an apple and the utility of an orange. Of course, mainstream economists take this to be an extremely special case. As far back as Edgeworth and Fisher, economists accepted the general case where utility functions are not necessarily additive. (Source: Blaug's Economic Theory in Retrospect, 4th edition.) A collection of articles need to be rewritten. -- RLV 209.217.195.160 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Robert. That critique supposes that, for utility to correspond to a measure, it must correspond to a measure whose direct objects are the commodities themselves. While such utility functions may be “theoretically” possible, no one has insisted that mainstream utility functions are necessarily themselves such measures, and I wouldn't have used the word “correspond” rather than “are” if I were making such a claim. —SlamDiego_←T22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice that the above "explanation" does not even pretend to give a hint of what sigma algebra Stigler supposedly claimed (in 1950!) was supposedly common among economists. -- RLV209.217.195.128 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coming in late to this, but the article as it stands is obviously problematic. The notion of "marginal use" is as far as I can tell, entirely confined to the minority/fringe Austrian school. Since marginal utility and its interpretation is a big deal for this school, this point should certainly be covered, but not presented in the lead as if it were the dominant view.JQ (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the explicit use of the notion certainly does seem confined to the Austrian School, but the implicit use is there. If we ask a mainstream economist what happens to utility when a use is withdrawn (because of a technical change or legal prohibition or whatever), he or she does not stand there helpless. If articles are written to assert that the notion is truly alien to mainstream economics, it makes the mainstream look less insightful than it actually does. Some Austrian School partisans might like that, but it's not a fair representation. (I know that Professor Quiggan is certainly not an Austrian School partisan.)

In fact, the notion that a good may be reconceptualized as a service is commonplace across schools of though, and when we are speaking of this service we are speaking of its use. Further, when Walras, who explicitly rejected the Benthamite notion of utility, used the term “utilite”, he was simply using the French for usefulness. I'm not sure how a writer who speaks of marginalusefulness can be take not to employ a concept of marginal use. —SlamDiego_←T 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and replaced the intro with something more representative of the mainstream view.JQ (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it's more representative, but more importantly, it isn't correct. The concept of marginal utility is one thing, the proposition that it is typically diminishing is another, and the propoisiton that it is diminishing from the get-go is much stronger than that. It's going to be rather a pity to see that article continue down its present path. —SlamDiego_←T 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I'm not sure even how to parse that accusation. Who the Hell is making suppositions about Stigler? —SlamDiego_←T 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a major revision of the entry for cardinal utility. Please visit the article to see how I incorporated many elements that were discussed here.--Forich (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The grammar in the article isn't great here and there. There's things in the article I disagree with, such as the failure to clarify differences among Jevons, Walras, and Menger. I think the term "affine function" or transformation should be used in a lot of places where the article talks about linear transformations. One might say something more about Von Neumann and Morgenstern - in particular, that they assumed agents have preferences over lotteries. -- RLV 209.217.195.128 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is misinformed: "The idea was simple: both Marshall and Walras' contributions required quantifiable utility functions, since their hypothesis needed room for the use of at least some arithmetics. Even though measurable utility theory provided these kind of utility functions, ..." One can do arithmetic on ranks. See the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statistic. And this is wrong too: "A utility function is considered to be measurable, if the strength of preference or intensity of liking of a good or service is determined with precision by the use of some objective criteria. For example, suppose that the act of eating an apple gives to individual A exactly half the pleasure of that of eating an orange. This would be a measurable utility if and only if an individual B, ignorant of the experience of the first person, must always arrive at the same conclusion." Whether or not utility attains a given measurement scale for each given individual is a seperate question whether or not all individuals get the same utils from the same bundles of goods. One person might have, in some sense, more refined tastes than another. With some work, you can probably 19th century writers making this point. -- RLV209.217.195.139 (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

One more point. The way the article is written, there should be some mention of the idea of a hedonometer. -- RLV 209.217.195.139 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"There's things in the article I disagree with, such as the failure to clarify differences among Jevons, Walras, and Menger."

The article definitely needs more about Jevons. I don't especialize in Walras, I've only read his Elements once.

"I think the term "affine function" or transformation should be used in a lot of places where the article talks about linear transformations."

Ok, feel free to point where using the discussion page there. Isn't "affine" the same as linear? maybe the former term is seen in calculus contexts whereas the latter is obviously coming from Linear algebra. I like linear the best.

"By the way, this is misinformed: "The idea was simple: both Marshall and Walras' contributions required quantifiable utility functions, since their hypothesis needed room for the use of at least some arithmetics. Even though measurable utility theory provided these kind of utility functions, ..." One can do arithmetic on ranks."

Maybe you're right. I was trying to make a point I read in Hicks (1936). He was very self conscious about how the theory needed to be coherent with negative slopes of demand as theorized by Marshall. I think you do need some numbers in order to reach the conclusion of negative slopes, but maybe there's some sophisticated way to do just as well using solely topological spaces or some other advanced method. What I am 100% positive, is that in Marshall's time there was no other way to get to the mathematics but using "reduce form" numerical functions, and they had to come from some structural model.--Forich(talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Price elasticity of demand

Could someone review for GA please? Other people may not be knowledgeable enough to point out my mistakes. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous?Discuss.]} 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)