Talk:Economics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:10, 1 February 2023 editPrimeBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots2,079,652 editsm Task 24: template replacement following a TFD Tag: AWB ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:33, 21 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors64,268 edits Undid revision 1264305220 by 2400:1A00:B040:D0C7:D10F:834D:1B36:11A2 (talk) rvTags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App undo
(86 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{{Talk header\|archive_age=3\|archive_units=months\|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
	{{Vital article\|level=2\|topic=Society\|class=C}}
	{{Not a forum}}		{{Not a forum}}
	{{British English Oxford spelling}}		{{British English Oxford spelling}}
Line 22:		Line 21:
	\|maindate=August 3,2004		\|maindate=August 3,2004
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject Business~~\|class=C~~\|importance=Top}}		{{WikiProject Business\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Economics~~\|class=C~~\|importance=Top}}		{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Finance~~\|class=C~~\|importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Finance & Investment\|importance=High}}
	{{WP1.0\|v0.5=pass\|core=yes\|class=C\|category=Socsci\|VA=yes\|WPCD=yes\|importance=top}}

	}}		}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 8		\|counter = 9
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(90d)		\|algo = old(90d)
Line 38:		Line 35:
	}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Economics/Archive index\|mask=Talk:Economics/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}		}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Economics/Archive index\|mask=Talk:Economics/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Criticism section ==
	== Request for suggestions - Feminist Economics Critique ==

			The '''criticism''' section is an editor-collated assemblage of various issues that are typical of discussion, debate, and the process of improvement in any rigorous academic discipline. As such, virtually the entire section is ]. If there's to be a separate criticism section, it would need to be sourced to RS that survey "criticims of economics", which is what the section purports to present.]] 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	Hi all,
			:I agree. Criticism of particular view-points of specific economists does not constitute a criticism of economics as such, and should not be included in a general criticism section, which should be reserved for more fundamental, and properly sourced, critique, if any.--] (]) 09:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Is it really a science if it has no predictive value? ==
	I'd like to change the Feminist Economics overview which is currently contained within the "Criticism" section of the article. Currently, part of this section states: "Primary criticisms focus on alleged failures to account for: the selfish nature of actors (homo economicus); exogenous tastes; the impossibility of utility comparisons; the exclusion of unpaid work; and the exclusion of class and gender considerations."

			Just wondering. ] (]) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	I'm not well versed in Feminst Economics and as such, dont feel comfortable implementing the changes myself. To anyone who's familiar with the literature could you please suggest a good change that addresses the following issues (discussed below) contained in the quoted part above:

			:Most science is inherently inductive, it's ] for some. ]] 06:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	* 1. "failure to account for: the selfish nature of actors". - Issues: Their criticism is not a failure in economics to account for "the selfish nature of actors", but rather the very assumptions of selfish actors.
			:Critics of economics seem to be confused about what "science" is and just how much of it is really "predictive." Economics is a social science. ] (]) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Seems like this is unclear ==
	* 2. "the impossibility of utility comparisons". - Issues: Utility is ordinal, so more is better and as such can be compared in the sense that 'bigger is better'. Utility can be translated into expenditure ($$) via the duality between Marshallian and Hicksian demand. If they are talking about comparing between individuals, then it's impossible in the sense that utility functions are specific to an individuals tastes. So mathematically, they're different functions. If they are instead referring to comparisons for an individual for different levels of utiliy, then the criticism is about the inability to compare the magnitude between two utility levels. E.g. A utility value of 4 vs a utility value of 2, although 4 is double 2, it does not mean the individual is twice as 'better-off'. What do they mean?

			Contemporary economics uses mathematics. Economists draw on the tools of calculus, linear algebra, statistics, game theory, and computer science. Professional economists are expected to be familiar with these tools, while a minority specialize in econometrics and mathematical methods. ] (]) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	Hopefully this doesnt read like some forum post, I just wanted to check if anyone out there who is familiar with these critiques could shed some light on and/or suggest a suitable edit.

			:What is unclear about it? ]] 06:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	: I agree that the current "failure to account for" wording is confusing.] (]) 13:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

		⚫	== Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 ==
	== Is Economics an academic discipline? ==

	From recent events, we know one thing for sure. Economists have not yet settled on a definition for "recession." Given that the most basic things about this so called "subject" have not been settled, can economics be treated as an academic discipline like the article makes it appear? Or is it better to describe economics as a pseudo-science along with alchemy and voodoo? ] (]) 12:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

	:please refer back to ], where this question has been explained. --] (]) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

⚫	== Semi-protected edit request on 28 ~~August~~ ~~2022~~ ==

	{{edit semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}		{{edit semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}
			In the "History of economic thought" subsection, remove Qin Shi Huang from "Other notable writers from Antiquity through to the Renaissance which wrote on include Aristotle, Chanakya (also known as Kautilya), Qin Shi Huang, Ibn Khaldun, and Thomas Aquinas." To my knowledge, the emperor wrote no known treatises on anything remotely resembling economic theory. ] (]) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
	Change (1) reference link (broken) to new reference link ] (]) 13:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
			:In fact the entire sentence "{{tq\|Other notable writers from ] through to the ] which}}{{sic}} {{tq\|wrote on}} {{tq\|include ], ] (also known as Kautilya), ], ], and ] }}" is dubious since it is not supported by any evidence and consequently I have deleted it. Of course if anybody can provide a citation or citations for one or more of these, then of course reinstate it to that extent. --] (]) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
	The old link is broken and the new link has been placed to the following URL https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/economics

	{{partly done\|Partly done:}}<!-- Template:ESp --> The learner's dictionary def is not the same one as in the archived Oxford def, so I'm marking the link as dead and just referring the reader to the archive instead. It wouldn't substantially change things either way, and Oxford and Merriam dictionaries honestly don't gaf how "precisely" they define the term or whether it conforms to some scholarly usage, so they should be removed anyway, and only OED (rigorously tracks common usage over time) and maybe SEP (source on hist & philosophy of science) should be used. ] (]) 16:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

	==Women in economics==
	Loosely following , I added some brief material on women in economics as a subsection of the Profession section. {{u\|SPECIFICO}} removed some of it, and suggested talk page discussion.

	1. ( as "gratuitous OR") ''"Though men have historically dominated the economics profession, some women economists achieved early prominence. For example, ..."'' .
	: I'm unsure whether by ] is meant the claim (a) that men have historically dominated the economics profession or (b) that some women economists achieved early prominence. Neither are something I made up, and both are easily verifiable. As for "gratuitous", perhaps the difference between SPECIFICO and me is stylistic: I intended this as brief scaffolding (admittedly involving some redundancy!), but also to make clear that the women economists listed were exceptionally prominent examples, rather than (on the one hand) a complete list of early women economists or (on the other) reflecting historical female dominance of the economic profession. I'd be interested to know consensus here. Perhaps it could be phrased more simply: ''"Though men predominated in the early economics profession, some women economists achieved prominence. For example, ..."''
	2. ( as "UNDUE content based on unpublished undergraduate paper about a chat room") ''"A 2017 study found widespread ] on a job market rumor forum for United States academic economics positions,<ref>{{cite journal \| first=Alice H. \| last=Wu \| title=Gendered Language on the Economics Job Market Rumors Forum \| journal=AEA Papers and Proceedings \| volume=108 \| year=2018 \| pages=175-179 \| url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6q7gfcbv9feef5/Wu_EJMR_paper.pdf?dl=0 \| doi=10.1257/pandp.20181101 }} Earlier version at {{cite web \| title=Gender Stereotyping in Academia: Evidence from Economics Job Market Rumors Forum \| url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6q7gfcbv9feef5/Wu_EJMR_paper.pdf?dl=0 \| access-date=August 30, 2022}}</ref> amounting to a ']' for women in the profession.<ref>{{cite news \| first=Justin \| last=Wolfers \| author-link=Justin Wolfers \| title=Evidence of a Toxic Environment for Women in Economics \| newspaper=The New York Times \| date=August 18, 2017 \| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/upshot/evidence-of-a-toxic-environment-for-women-in-economics.html \| access-date=August 30, 2022 }}</ref>"''
	:I was initially happy to agree, until I noticed that a Google Books search shows Wu's paper has been cited in over 20 books. So I thought this would be good to air also.
	Best wishes, ] (]) 14:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

	:(1) is telling the reader how to interpret the subsequent factual content. The factual content can be greatly expanded and would benefit the article. The unsourced lead-in is not NPOV and fails ]. It's opinion, and even if a source or two can be found that share such an opinion, it is not the WEIGHT of mainstream thinking.<br>
	:(2) Is silly stuff and give the tens of millions of books indexed with google, the fact that 20 cite such a non-RS paper is patently unremarkable and does not invalidate core WP policy.
⚫	~~:Thanks~~ ~~for~~ ~~your~~ ~~contribution of the sourced~~ ~~factual~~ ~~part~~ of ~~that~~ ~~section~~.]] 14:50, 30 ~~August~~ ~~2022~~ (UTC)
	::I don't understand your reference to 'the WEIGHT of mainstream thinking'. Do you know of ''any'' ('mainstream' or not!) sources that suggest that either (a) men did not predominate in the early economics profession, or (b) the women I mentioned did not achieve prominence? Your suggestion that the material could be expanded is interesting. I was actually trying to avoid unbalancing the Profession section by giving too many examples. But clearly there are many more (see e.g. ]'s ''A Herstory of Economics'').I disagree with you here about what is 'silly stuff'. Misogynist talk is silly, sure, but it's not thereby inconsequential - and so measuring its prominence within a profession isn't silly at all. ] (]) 15:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
	:::It's silly because it's an undergraduate with a statistics software package who thinks some jobs chatroom is an important indicator of "a profession", society, or world culture. If you are interested in improving our coverage of women in economics, I suggest you start with ] ] ], ], and others who have made front page news and then delve into notable academics and business leaders and other civic figures who happened to be economists.]] 17:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
	::Don't disagree about Yellen etc., but whether or not women face weird hostility from men in the economic job market seems relevant to the state of the profession. I realise I didn't address your point about the Wu paper not being a RS. I was actually thinking of the Justin Wolfers NYT piece as the RS, and provided the link to the Wu paper for convenience. Would taking that ref out assuage your concerns? ] (]) 20:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
	:::No, NYT is chit-chat. UNDUE and not encyclopedic, just a day's copy. It's not as if they are reporting a news event and it is basically just conveying a single narrow view. There could be a WP article about the status of women in various professions or academic specializations, but this page is about Economics, not even about economists, and this content is marginal even if fleshed-out and well-sourced. It's kind of ].]] 20:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
	::::] comes to mind, but ] contains at least 50 people, another 200 or so in ]. I think the main question, which we can't answer in the article because as SPECIFICO says it would be OR, is, do women have trouble being economists, or did women basically have trouble being ''any'' high-powered profession prior to whenever the ] picked up some steam. Probably the case, so focusing on this in the article is undue weight. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

	{{reflist talk}}

			== Is criticism necessary? ==
	== Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2022 ==

			I think a serious case could be made that the criticism section violates the rules of the encyclopedia. The fact is, economics is recognized as a legitimate field of inquiry and a social science by major academic institutions, and almost all of these critiques are coming from outside the field. Would we have a criticism section in an article about "history" or "sociology"? There isn't any on either page.
	{{Edit semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}
	Change "Economic analysis can be applied throughout society, including business, finance, health care, engineering and government."

			I shouldn't have to say this, but you could find criticism of just about any subject if you look for it. The rules are clear that sourcing should always be mainstream and criticism is only warranted in special circumstances. An example of a subject that has a valid criticism section is the ] article -note that the critiques are sourced to experts with backgrounds in either biology or psychology, not philosophers or scholars with no relevant background like we find in this article. I think the section should be removed. ] (]) 06:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	To

			:The qualm is where we draw the line between reliable sources that are about the topic and those that aren't. I don't think the line is as firm as you describe. Maybe it can be presented differently, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that only economists get to be considered reliable sources for commentary on the field of economics. Perhaps the article should be weighted differently, but the logical conclusion of your argument is much more of an NPOV issue than the article as it stands IMO. ]] 06:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	"Economic analysis can be applied throughout society, including business, finance, ]<ref>{{cite journal \|last1=Kianpour \|first1=Mazaher \|last2=Kowalski, \|first2=Stewart \|last3=Øverby \|first3=Harald \|date=2021 \|title=Systematically Understanding Cybersecurity Economics: A Survey \|url= https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13677 \|journal= Sustainability\|volume= 13 \|doi= 10.3390/su132413677}}</ref>, health care, engineering, and government. " ] (]) 13:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
			::The criticism section has, justifiedly, been criticized in earlier discussions, too, cf. ]. The parts of the section that consists of criticism of particular viewpoints of specific economists should not be listed in a general criticism section. As suggested before, if a separate criticism section should be upheld at all (according to ], such separate sections are generally to be avoided because they introduce issues of undue weight), a minimum requirement would appear to be that it would be sourced to reliable sources that explicitly survey "criticims of economics". ] (]) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 13:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
			::If this were a subject like genealogy you'd have a point, but economics? The line is very clear: people who are recognized as economists and who publish research in mainstream, refereed economics journals are RS. An activist working for a think tank, a philosopher, a politician or journalist with no obvious credentials in the field are not RS. So, there's the line. ] (]) 21:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
		⚫	Time to remove it. Any valid bits belong elsewhere.]] 23:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Intuitive writing ==
	==Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing==
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UC_Santa_Barbara/Writ_2_-_Academic_Writing_(Winter_2023) \| assignments = ] \| start_date = 2023-01-09 \| end_date = 2023-03-22 }}

			Hi, I think the lead can be written a bit more intuitively, or at the very least have the intuitive writing first, and page links with technical language in brackets.
	<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 23:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)</span>

			I think there also needs to be paragraph summarising the history section, which summarises ancient study, classical, a separation into Marxian, then back to Keynesian, monetarist, and list the main modern day innovations/fringes like humanistic (the page for it needs to be edited to add the alternative humanistic proposals to homo economicus) and others. ] (]) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	== India Education Program course assignment ==
	] This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Symbiosis School of Economics supported by ] through the ] during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available ].] ]

	~~{{small\|The~~ ~~above~~ ~~message~~ ~~was~~ ~~substituted~~ ~~from~~ ~~{{tlc\|IEP~~ ~~assignment}}~~ by ] (]) ~~on 20~~:10, 1 ~~February~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)}}		:I dont think the fringes deserve mention in the lead tbh ] (]) 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
			::Yeah good point, but the body could include some more ] (]) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
			:I think the use of mathematics and models intended to capture reality and relationships between phenomenon needs to be mentioned ] (]) 10:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
			:@] I just thought the quote provided a less technical definition that will be intuitive to a lot of readers. I also think "with emphasis on autonomous ]" should be in the lede because that isn't made clear since there isn't a separation between agents and elements. I also think there should be a paragraph summarising the history/progression of economics, and ] should be mentioned at the end because there's a lot of controversy around it within academia and we might be violating ] ] (]) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:33, 21 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Economics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Economics at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

[REDACTED]

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
April 21, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
September 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former featured article

This

level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Top‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism section

The criticism section is an editor-collated assemblage of various issues that are typical of discussion, debate, and the process of improvement in any rigorous academic discipline. As such, virtually the entire section is WP:OR. If there's to be a separate criticism section, it would need to be sourced to RS that survey "criticims of economics", which is what the section purports to present. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Criticism of particular view-points of specific economists does not constitute a criticism of economics as such, and should not be included in a general criticism section, which should be reserved for more fundamental, and properly sourced, critique, if any.--Økonom (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it really a science if it has no predictive value?

Just wondering. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Most science is inherently inductive, it's a real problem for some. Remsense诉 06:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Critics of economics seem to be confused about what "science" is and just how much of it is really "predictive." Economics is a social science. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this is unclear

Contemporary economics uses mathematics. Economists draw on the tools of calculus, linear algebra, statistics, game theory, and computer science. Professional economists are expected to be familiar with these tools, while a minority specialize in econometrics and mathematical methods. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What is unclear about it? Remsense诉 06:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "History of economic thought" subsection, remove Qin Shi Huang from "Other notable writers from Antiquity through to the Renaissance which wrote on include Aristotle, Chanakya (also known as Kautilya), Qin Shi Huang, Ibn Khaldun, and Thomas Aquinas." To my knowledge, the emperor wrote no known treatises on anything remotely resembling economic theory. Theoskhthonios (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact the entire sentence "Other notable writers from Antiquity through to the Renaissance which wrote on include Aristotle, Chanakya (also known as Kautilya), Qin Shi Huang, Ibn Khaldun, and Thomas Aquinas" is dubious since it is not supported by any evidence and consequently I have deleted it. Of course if anybody can provide a citation or citations for one or more of these, then of course reinstate it to that extent. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Is criticism necessary?

I think a serious case could be made that the criticism section violates the rules of the encyclopedia. The fact is, economics is recognized as a legitimate field of inquiry and a social science by major academic institutions, and almost all of these critiques are coming from outside the field. Would we have a criticism section in an article about "history" or "sociology"? There isn't any on either page.

I shouldn't have to say this, but you could find criticism of just about any subject if you look for it. The rules are clear that sourcing should always be mainstream and criticism is only warranted in special circumstances. An example of a subject that has a valid criticism section is the Evolutionary psychology article -note that the critiques are sourced to experts with backgrounds in either biology or psychology, not philosophers or scholars with no relevant background like we find in this article. I think the section should be removed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The qualm is where we draw the line between reliable sources that are about the topic and those that aren't. I don't think the line is as firm as you describe. Maybe it can be presented differently, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that only economists get to be considered reliable sources for commentary on the field of economics. Perhaps the article should be weighted differently, but the logical conclusion of your argument is much more of an NPOV issue than the article as it stands IMO. Remsense诉 06:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The criticism section has, justifiedly, been criticized in earlier discussions, too, cf. Talk:Economics#Criticism_section. The parts of the section that consists of criticism of particular viewpoints of specific economists should not be listed in a general criticism section. As suggested before, if a separate criticism section should be upheld at all (according to Misplaced Pages:Criticism, such separate sections are generally to be avoided because they introduce issues of undue weight), a minimum requirement would appear to be that it would be sourced to reliable sources that explicitly survey "criticims of economics". Økonom (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If this were a subject like genealogy you'd have a point, but economics? The line is very clear: people who are recognized as economists and who publish research in mainstream, refereed economics journals are RS. An activist working for a think tank, a philosopher, a politician or journalist with no obvious credentials in the field are not RS. So, there's the line. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Time to remove it. Any valid bits belong elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Intuitive writing

Hi, I think the lead can be written a bit more intuitively, or at the very least have the intuitive writing first, and page links with technical language in brackets.

I think there also needs to be paragraph summarising the history section, which summarises ancient study, classical, a separation into Marxian, then back to Keynesian, monetarist, and list the main modern day innovations/fringes like humanistic (the page for it needs to be edited to add the alternative humanistic proposals to homo economicus) and others. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont think the fringes deserve mention in the lead tbh VineFynn (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah good point, but the body could include some more Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the use of mathematics and models intended to capture reality and relationships between phenomenon needs to be mentioned Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy I just thought the quote provided a less technical definition that will be intuitive to a lot of readers. I also think "with emphasis on autonomous market forces" should be in the lede because that isn't made clear since there isn't a separation between agents and elements. I also think there should be a paragraph summarising the history/progression of economics, and economics imperialism should be mentioned at the end because there's a lot of controversy around it within academia and we might be violating WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: