Talk:Economics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:45, 16 January 2024 edit2409:40e6:35:7315:8000:: (talk) →Economic class 11: new sectionTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:33, 21 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors64,200 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
(43 intermediate revisions by 25 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}}
	{{Not a forum}}		{{Not a forum}}
	{{British English Oxford spelling}}		{{British English Oxford spelling}}
Line 21:		Line 21:
	\|maindate=August 3,2004		\|maindate=August 3,2004
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject Business\|importance=Top}}		{{WikiProject Business\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=Top}}		{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=Top}}
Line 29:		Line 29:
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 8		\|counter = 9
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(90d)		\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Economics/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Economics/Archive %(counter)d
	}}{{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}}

	== Stating by whom has the S/D model been made in the introduction ==

	I'd like to suggest to modify the sentence "The supply and demand model describes how..." to "The supply and demand model by Alfred Marshall describes how..." for describing the supply and demande curves in the introduction of the wiki page. ] (]) 23:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

	== European economics ==

	The page does not inform about Asian economics: China, India. ] (]) 06:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

⚫	== Semi-protected edit request on 27 ~~August~~ ~~2023~~ ==

⚫	{{~~Edit~~ semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}
	"Other wschools or trends of thought referring " should read "Other schools or trends of thought referring" ] (]) 03:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
	:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> —](]) 04:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

	== Suggestions for "History of economic thought" ==

	The main purpose of that section should be to present the history of economic thought from a mainstream view, mentioning the more heterodox directions collectively at a less detailed level, preferably in the subsection "Other schools and approaches" as is the case currently for some of these. However, three heterodox schools are given prominent treatment in the main text: Marxian, post-Keynesian and Austrian thought. This would conflict with ]. I propose that mention of the three schools be shortened and moved to the subsection of other schools.
	Secondly, the current subsection on the Chicago School should be replaced by two new ones, on monetarism and new classical economics, respectively. Though it is true that the protagonists from both schools are sometimes mentioned as Chicago School economists, the two schools are clearly distinct and played independent and important roles in the development of theory - a fact which the current text does not reflect properly. ] (]) 18:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

	:While this section could use some editing, your changes are too extreme. Marxian economics is a part of the history of economics whether you like it or not. Also, Marxian economics followed in the tradition of classical economics and the labor theory of value - neoclassical economics is a break from Marxian (and to some extent classical) economics and its rise makes no sense if you erase Marx's writings, the massive socialist movement from the 19th to late 20th century etc. from existence.
	:Probably what can use the most cleanup is the post-Keynesian section. Your edits seem fine, the main problem is there are too many headers - economists flirtation with rational expectations is not as significant as neoclassical or classical economics. What you wrote is fine but they don't each deserve a new section. I am putting the Marxian section back and changing the three post-Keynesian sections into one. ] (]) 18:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
	::Our disagreements seem to relate to three issues:
	# The prominence of Marxian economics in the outline of history of thought,
	# The prominence of post-Keynesian economics in the outline of history of thought,
	# The use of headers.

	::As to the first two points, I believe that it is generally recognized that there is a mainstream research program in economics, and then there are some fringe/alternative/heterodox groups outside the mainstream. Both Marxian and post-Keynesian economics are generally categorized as belonging to the heterodox groupings, e.g. by Lee's article in The New Palgrave, which I cited. Following ], such theories can be mentioned in an overview like the present one, but they should not be given prominence on a level equal to mainstream theory, so I think that your recent edits give both theories an undue weight in the exposition.
	::As to the third point, (old) Keynesian, monetarist, new classical and new Keynesian theories are regarded as the main post-war schools of thought in several, if not most, accounts of economic theory. I cited Blanchard's recent exposition, but it is just one typical example (whereas Marxian and post-Keynesian theories are rarely mentioned except in very detailed overviews). The same division was mentioned in the article already before my edits, in the subsection on Other schools. This typical division in reliable sources should also be reflected in the heading hierarchy. ] (]) 06:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps the clearest WP guideline relevant to the present discussion is ], where it says: "''Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as ] and ], should not be excluded. However, per '']'', theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.''" I believe this implies that it is reasonable to mention both Marxian and post-Keynesian in the subsection on other schools, as I did in my edit, but not to give them the prominent role in the general overview which you have re-instated with your edits. ] (]) 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox. Adam Smith and David Ricardo and the classical economists had views of value closer to Marx's then current mainstream academia. Just like Isaac Newton's physics are heterodox in our current post-Einstein, post-quantum mechanics world. The argument that ] means to erase any history considered heterodox in current US academia is not just to erase Marxian economics from history, and erase the Cold War from history, but to erase all economic history. The economic ideas around the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act are as much part of important economic history as Marxian ideas, whether or not they're considered heterodox in current US academia. All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox in that view.
	::::I don't have any opinions about how post-Keynesianism is portrayed, other than that are too many headers everywhere, I moved that section around as best I could.
	::::Adam Smith wrote in 1776 and Capital was published in 1867. About ninety years of economic thought in one section, including Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill. Contrast this to rational expectations which had its heyday in the 1970s and which has waned somewhat since then. It seems to deserve its own paragraph but not its own section. The history section already has more sub-sections than any other section, adding several more sections for one-paragraph descriptions doesn't really flow. It doesn't make sense to me but lots of people are around to organize sections other than myself.
	::::Economics is a social science, not a science. ] (]) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::The crucial point, on which I hope we agree, is that the article should follow the established WP guidelines, including ]. You do not directly address this point? There is no attempt to erase alternative ideas from the article, but to give them their due weight, by putting the two dissident views in question in the section of "Other schools..." together with the other heterodox groupings which are already described there. Instead of giving the erroneous impression, which the current text gives, that they are important mainstream milestones in theory history. I know of no recognized authoritative sources which support the weight that Marxism and post-Keynesianism currently has in the text.
	:::::To make a compromise, I suppose one could argue that Marx himself and his labour theory of value might merit some kind of mention in the Classical political economy section, whereas his later followers which make up what is normally called Marxist or Marxian economics are more properly mentioned in the Other schools section. Post-Keynesian economics is currently described redundantly, appearing in both the heterodox context and before that (unchronologically) in the main Keynesian section. It should be removed from the latter (as should new Keynesian economics, which also appears later), which more appropriately could mention some of Keynes' important early followers like Hicks, Tobin, Modigliani, etc. As to the headers, I do not see a great problem in the number of headers itself if they form a logical division of the text, and I repeat that monetarists, new classicals and new Keynesians are generally recognized as important independent post-war schools. Several widely used textbooks use the same line of division. However, if your discontent is about the level of hierarchy, they could be subsections under your header of Post-WWII economics. ] (]) 16:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
	::::::] says to grant things due weight. This is a historical section, so Marxian economics is given due weight - in fact, it should probably be given even more weight. Even in the US, the ideas of Marxian economics were taught in grade school and high school and college during the Cold War.
	::::::For a section on economics today, yes, Marxian economics would have less weight. In a historical section, it does not make sense. From 1867 to 1990 a great amount of economic writing in the east and west was about Marxian economics, the economy of the USSR and PRC and Comecon countries. You're taking the due weight of today and applying it, not to today, but to history. You're erasing any portion of the historical development of economics because it is not currently in fashion in western academia. It's like removing Isaac Newton from history of physics because people realize F=ma is not correct when dealing with high velocity or large mass.
	::::::Yes, subsections under post-WWII economics makes sense. ] (]) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

	== Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023 ==

	{{Edit semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}
	Considering the global influence of feminist economics in current economic policy, a major example being gender mainstreaming<ref>https://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/un-system-coordination/gender-mainstreaming</ref> among other gender-aware economic policies, <ref>https://www.state.gov/reports/united-states-strategy-on-global-womens-economic-security/</ref> this heterodox school of thought deserves more weight than currently granted in the article. I suggest this should be addressed by inserting a definition of feminist economics under the subsection "Other schools of thought" under the section "History of economic thought." A suggested edit is as follows:
	Feminist economics emphasizes the role that gender plays in economies, challenging schools of thought that render gender invisible or support gender-oppressive economic systems.<ref>https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2210-1#citeas</ref> The goal is to create economic research and policy analysis that is inclusive and gender-aware to encourage gender equality and improve the well-being of marginalized groups.<ref>https://www.iaffe.org/</ref> ] (]) 23:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
	{{rlt}}
	:] '''In progress:''' An editor is implementing the requested edit.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 04:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

	== Criticism section ==		== Criticism section ==
Line 87:		Line 40:
	: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)		: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? ==
	== Economic ==

	~~বাজার~~ ~~চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল~~ ] (]) 02:38, 16 ~~January~~ 2024 (UTC)		Just wondering. ] (]) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

			:Most science is inherently inductive, it's ] for some. ]] 06:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	== Economic ==
			: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 ==
	বাজার চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল ] (]) 02:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

			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)
	== Economic ==

			:What is unclear about it? ]] 06:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	বাজার চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল ] (]) 02:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

		⚫	== Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 ==
	== Economic ==

		⚫	{{edit semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}
	বাজার চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল ] (]) 02:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
			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)
			: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)

			== Is criticism necessary? ==
	== Economic ==

			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.
	বাজার চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল project ] (]) 02:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

			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)
	== Economic ==

			: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)
	বাজার চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল project ] (]) 02:41, 16 January 2024 (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)
			::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)

	== ~~Economic~~ ~~class 11~~ ==		== 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.
	বাজার চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল project
	@ ] (]) 02:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

			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)
	== Economic class 11 ==

			:I dont think the fringes deserve mention in the lead tbh ] (]) 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	বাজার চাহিদা ও বস্তুর দামের পরিবর্তনের ফলাফল project
	@ ] (]) 02:45, 16 ~~January~~ 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: