Talk:Economics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:32, 20 April 2002 editBryan Derksen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users95,333 editsm linking Joao to user page← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:33, 21 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors64,263 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
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	I'm a little concerned that Economics as a formal branch of mathematics is totally ignored here in favor of the social science, which came after the mathematical models. I'm also not sure it makes sense to call "scarcity" the fundamental concept underlying economics; I might have chosen rationality, comparability of values, or efficiency. No mention at all of important concepts like Pareto optimality, revealed preference, marginal utility? I'm just a dabbler, but surely there's someone here with a better background in mathematical economics that could do a reasonable job fixing this? --]
			{{Talk header}}
	----
			{{Not a forum}}
	You are quite right - there is a mathematical side of economics (or as one of my professors would say ''hardcore econometrics''). I could write up about 30-40 pages and subpages on the subject. It will take up some time though, and the real problem is to stick to the theoretical side and not to engage oneself into discussions about which view is right or wrong - we would clearly miss the point here. Anyway, you are the first person that has borught this up and I'm grateful for that. ]
			{{British English Oxford spelling}}
			{{Article history\|action1=RBP
			\|action1date=January 19,2004
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing_brilliant_prose_-_People_and_culture
			\|action1result=kept
			\|action1oldid=2804446
			\|action2=FAR
			\|action2date=April 21,2006
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Economics
			\|action2result=demoted
			\|action2oldid=49368028
			\|action3=GAN
			\|action3date=September 21, 2007
			\|action3link=Talk:Economics/Archive 2#Failed .22good article.22 nomination
			\|action3result=Failed
			\|action3oldid=159302341
			\|currentstatus=FFA
			\|maindate=August 3,2004
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Business\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Finance & Investment\|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 9
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|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}}

			== Criticism section ==
	----
	Someone wrote a bad review of economics section at kuro5hin:

			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)
	http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/9/24/43858/2479/4#4
			: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? ==
	This comment could help the section to improve?

			Just wondering. ] (]) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	]

			:Most science is inherently inductive, it's ] for some. ]] 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. ] (]) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Seems like this is unclear ==
	I put in a brief section on econometrics and added a little to the network effects section. Could add more, and may do so later. No guarantee it's totally precise and correct, but if I could do that off the top of my head, I'd probably be writing a textbook rather than updating Wiki b/c I felt like it ...

			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)
	Some topics I think would be worthwhile (off the top of my head):

			:What is unclear about it? ]] 06:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	Game theory (linking to John Nash etc), pareto optimality, exchange rate theory (pegged, float, dirty-float), Bretton Woods, Neo-Keynesian school, Milton Friedman, the Austrian School, utility theory, revealed preference, cardinality and ordinality, simple supply and demand, oligopoloy / monopoly theory and competition, contestability, sunk costs, interest rates, money supply, the concept of a market, Walras and the concept of the auction, the business cycle, random walks, determinism and predictablity in economics (linking to chaos theory), financial markets, and theories of regulation and taxation.

			== Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 ==
	Off the top of my head though - I might come back to do some of them if I've got the time. Haven't really thought about most of this stuff for a few years now ...

			{{edit semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}
	C
			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)
	Yikes, I agree, those are all important. But let's get to neutral on the structure first. I think the Fundamentals and History section are better up front because they simply don't take sides or introduce 'capitalism vs. not' - actually they frame the idea of political economy almost perfectly, and show how animal (instinctual swaps) to hunter-gatherer to more complex trade build up... a very even beginning, but kind of out of place at the very very end - 24

			== Is criticism necessary? ==
	That said, many people will come here wanting to do a crash course in Economics 101 and so political economy, fundamentals, foundations, etc., should be nothing but links up front for them... hard to know how to handle this.

			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.
	On the other hand, some university-educated former peasant in Cambodia with 5000 words of English will come here wanting to know why "Economics" is destroying his village and country, and that market has less support from neutral sources.

			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)
	I'd say, err heavily on the side of neutrality, since that improves articles and gives something that can't be provided elsewhere - a neutral point of view. Fundamentals would go first, mention the concerns of the non-capitalist schools, end with the concept of political economy, link off to capitalism, and then proceed to explain how that political economy's terms are applied in the present: the rest of the article. Is that fair enough?
	----
	My vote would be for keeping this article fairly short, and essentially just saying: here are all the articles we have on economics here in Misplaced Pages, with brief uncontroversial explanations. More controversial ideas, like, say, Marx vs Neoclassical, should go in the respective articles so that it is very clear who is saying what.

			: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)
	:if that's the approach, then ONLY the Fundamentals section and a laundry list of different theories of ] would go here. Since good old ] is the most prevalent, we can lay out the way it defines the major branches of economics: macro, micro, resource. And the theories classical, neoclassical, Keynes, etc.. But really that's more or less what the article is now. I agree completely that this article must not COMPARE different economic models, as that is the role of ] anyway. This is also exactly what is done in ], ], ]. So these five files have managed to be very neutral, and avoided taking sides extremely carefully. Tough since neoclassical/libertarian, classical/conservative, Marxist/socialist, green/environmental schools PRETEND they are talking about different things... but clearly and obviously aren't on micro-level.
			::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)

			== Intuitive writing ==
	:so, I think the whole controversy is about macro, and that we should say that it is only about macro. In micro you can see a clean classical -> Marxist or neoclassical -> green transition with only very minor quirks of difference between the four. In Macro, basically, everything is religion.

	~~If anything~~, I think the ~~article~~ ~~could~~ be ~~slimmed~~ ~~down~~ ~~with,~~ ~~for~~ ~~example~~, ~~some~~ of the ~~history~~ ~~stuff~~ ~~going~~ in ~~history~~ of ~~economic~~ ~~thought~~.		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. ] (]) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	:There's only one paragraph of history here now, and yes it should link to history of economic thought. I agree the whole article needs editing, but I can't see any content that can be omitted and still leave the casual reader roughly understanding the scope of real economics.

			:I dont think the fringes deserve mention in the lead tbh ] (]) 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	:how about this. Fundamentals takes you from the simple difference between animals (who don't trade except for some apes who engage in prostitution...!) and the earliest human societies which trade loosely and informally, e.g. in hunter gatherer bands. That distinction is important to understanding that economics is not somethign made up by economists, as many people now believe. That section would take you up to ] and explain that the most dominant political econmy is this thing ] which may be itself part of evolution or it may be just one way to do things (we should NOT take a side on THIS!) among humans (since trade is "our thing" that makes us unique I would hope we have a choice about it - but maybe not).
			::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)
	:then, the MICRO concepts are introduced loosely with links to the other articles: ], ], etc.. Actually the way the micro articles are laid out is very good now and I think it is possible to explain each and every macro theory laying out how it sees each micro "style of capital" or whatever. MACRO is a dog no matter what you do, the fields don't agree, they don't want to agree, and politics is all over - see ] or ] for a good list of current debates.
			:@] 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)

	:what I think we can't do is just slough this off on the reader with a list of links... as if the subject is too hot to handle. It isn't, the Fundamentals and the Micro ] are seen the same by all schools, even the Marxists - they just resist the term "]".

	------
	Rewrite improves it significantly, one nitpick: there is not enough focus on the thing economics is actually about - the formation, administration and optimization of markets, e.g. ]. Mostly a matter of language, but all these players and studies are clustered around things, and those things are markets.

	Another minor nitpick is that the Fundamentals section used to nicely bridge between the idea that economics is about the human ability to choose and trade, whereas the exactly same allocation of resources in other animals is guided mostly by instinct and is studied in biology and ecology. In the old wording, that bridged neatly to the hunter-gatherer society stuff. In the new one, it's a bit harder to tell how anyone could believe that hunter-gatherer society can be irrelevant if animal behavior and ecology are relevant... where is the bridge? This whole matter may need a rewrite to make the extreme views clear - I presume Margulis' flat statement that economics is ecology for humans is one such extreme. Is there another extreme saying that economics is the pinnacle of human activity coming directly from god, contrary in all ways to our animal nature, or whatever? Seems to me I've seen quotes like that...

	------------------------------------------------------------------

	Replaced scarcity, not because it isn't in the textbooks, but because "choices under scarcity" is just a verbose defintition of "trade". I vote for clarity.
	:I think the point of economics is to create those verbose definitions. It's not just "choice under scarcity" but also the NATURE of choice, the NATURE of scarcity. The Fundamentals section is good but has to make this clearer, and come up front.

	"capitalism" doesn't belong on front page, i agree.
	:I think it does. The vast majority of the world's population is now living under a regime of neoclassical economic assumptions applied via various institutions under a ] of ]. If you read those articles, and ] and ], but especially ] you will see a subtext of assumptions that basically explain, to popular satisfaction, why capitalism is popular. We need to think more about the ] here.

	:This is very very important, as 10000 indymedia authors will get here soon, and if we don't have solid material on these issues, they'll just tear up every article with polemic and create chaos. You might also wish to review ] and ] to see the basic conflicts in poli sci that are driving this. of course, if you find any of that wildly out of line with your own thinking, by all means cite and correct, but please try to avoid the wholesale cut-outs that more ignorant people here are engaged in... personally I NEVER remove a line of any article written by anyone else, but work with it and try to work its point of view in citing where it comes from.
	:The most credible players on a values-neutral and state-neutral economics are in the UK, of course. ] at the ] which is engaged in ] in the UK for the Blair government's ], seems to have drawn the hardest lines around ] rather than letting it fuzz out like ] (the global guru on this) has. Also, ] of the ] wrote an article called "how hardwired is human behavior" - highly recommended, hits on the "fundamentals" problems hard. I don't know how the ] has characterized the issues in ] or ] but it's obviously key to understanding how they see this "brand versus flag versus label" thing that confuses so many in America (where e.g. Coca-cola is all three at once ;-))
	::you will notice, from all those question marks, that no one here seems to know much about the real world. On the other hand, put double square brackets around the name of any character in any ] novel and you'll find an abundance. There is a serious ] as it stands. - 24
	-speculation: in twenty years, economics will be incorporated as a branch of general systems theory. (doesn't belong on front page either)
	:it's a common speculation especially among ] and ] and ] types. However, the objections are serious: we don't actually understand biology enough to make it a branch of general systems theory, nor necessarily should we, as general systems assumes a "God's eye view" of events that is increasingly suspect thanks to ]. Second, economics, biology and systems/physics theory (especially anti-reductionists) just doesn't deal with ethics well enough - most economic choice is ethical, see ]. Also, read the early ], especially "economics and ethics" and most importantly "is internal consistency of choice bizarre?" where he asks key body philosophy of action/body questions in context of economics. Sen is a heavyweight. He will do something quite new in the next 20 years. Let's not contradict it here:

	:Thus, my speculation is that economics, biology, ethics, and physics will all combine into a new thing to REPLACE general systems theory - that thing called "bionomics" which works for what biological stuff we can see, and then a more rigorous thing (including probably morality and ecology on a strictly local basis, i.e. breathing and moving as per the ], as a new micro-economics) that works as a ]. But that does not belong on the front page either. All we're doing here is documenting the field as it is, trying to be even between classical, neoclassical, Marxist and green approaches. I'd say the UN backing for the idea of "]" and the heavy influence of the greens makes them a first-class school (of ]) even though they lack a clear ] of their own (which your theory here would have to be).

	MLP-Volt
	:welcome, and as you seem intelligent, I'd like your speculation on this - we have a problem brewing in ] over how to treat the ]. I suspect we just can't use the terms "commodity money", "fiat money" or "credit money" which are approximations disputed in the various theories, and should refer to the backing and clearing process directly, i.e. ], ], and ], describing how settlement occurs. That would assume that all three types of assurance could be involved in "backing", and that what really mattered for purposes of money was not "backing versus clearing versus tokens" but the clearing process as it relates to trust at the point of trade. If you agree, you might wish to rewrite ] and ] this way, looking at the diffs in the history and at the talk to see what disputes have been arising there and in ]. It won't take you long to see what the problem is - a bunch of folks who seem to believe history started with 1776 (Smith, USA) and no experience of the post-classical schools are citing off old textbooks with non-neutral definitions. This is fine in micro-economics, there's no difference in how the theories treat ] or ] ultimately, but for macro, it's obviously a complete disaster, and I'm too busy with other stuff to fix the damage they seem to be doing.
	:So, you're welcome to wade in. To see the issue clearly, read this which is an anti-fiat rant: "as long as you price your gold in fiat dollars and not in silver, or you price your silver in fiat dollars and not in gold, you are a part of the problem." As you know, the vast majority of the cranks believe this, and they're about to get here in the dozens at least. So we have to pre-answer this type of question, and avoid ideological bias of claiming that money is "all credit" or "all commodity" or "all fiat" - thus the clearing or backing terminology is essential. -24

	ALL of the above could use more citation and qualification, as it is very hard to write a totally neutral text that doesn't take sides on issues of state or values. And whose terms the classical, neoclassical, Marxist and green gurus would at least all recognize and not hack up. Which must be our objective, if we wish wiki to have the most citable and most trusted text on the subject anywhere in the world.

	And if that's not what we want, why the hell are we here?

	---

	Anyway if you truly don't give a shit, thanks for your input so far. ;-) - 24

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: