Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 4
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3||Archive 4|
Edit request on 3 January 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 13 January 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Economics has now become more mainstream by reflecting everyday events of pop culture, relationship uses and day to day decisions in the form of Economics. This has been done eloquently by using the tool of Game Theory. Particularly in books such as Undercover Economist, Freakonomics and websites such as www.entertainingeconomics.com.
- Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find Thomas's proposal or its discussion amid the mountains of text.
I oppose the proposal to remove game theory and optimization as mathematical methods of economics and to leave national accounting. (1) Economics curricula cover optimization as the core of their math-for-economists M.A. programs, at least in the US and Scandinavia. National accounting is ignored. (2) The JEL and MSC2010 have much more coverage of optimization/game-theory articles & books than of national accounting.15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: The section that KW states he could not find had this Edit summary & link:
with my user name & dated 13:10, 12 January 2012. Most people might conclude that KW had to work to avoid finding the proposal. (I had the same link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Feedback on 3rd question above as to size of 'Technical methods' section of Template:Economics sidebar.) KW's remarks above misrepresent my proposal, prejudicing consideration of it, contrary to WP:Guidelines but consistent with my earlier, related complaint at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Requested outside opinion on 19:16, 25 May 2011. I had the same link at Negligence is not an excuse. If KW wishes to repeat the above (something I would not favor, obviously) or otherwise comment there, he need only follow the above link or use the TOC at the top to locate sect. 2.3. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to restore "Heterodox approaches" by removing "Mainstream economics"
In the that same Edit "Heterodox approaches" was shortened to "Heterodox" This corresponds to Template (G) at the far right, compared to earlier Template (A) at the near right. I propose to restore (A).
I believe that (G) is unnecessary and counterproductive on the following grounds, which I number for ease of reference:
1T. JEL classification codes has no such ME category:
Rather, it links only the above triad without balancing Heterodox economics (HE) off against Mainstream economics (ME). Adding ME arguably obscures the distinction between Economic methodology & HE. I believe that most general readers and most economists would prefer the authenticity of the unbroken JEL: B triad in the sidebar to a questionable application of a WP guideline that adds unnecessary complexity to that section of the sidebar.
2T. While it is clear that ME complements HE, it is not at all clear that its absence gives WP:Undue weight to HE in the sidebar. Surely, its absence in JEL: B does not thereby give "Heterodox Approaches" "undue weight" in the JEL codes. It's simply a distinction from the other subcategories.
3T. "Mainstream economics" is not significant enough to appear as a separate entry in the massive 8-volume New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008), unlike HE. Rather ME is used in passing there, most commonly in relation to HE subjects. just as is done in the Economics lead and Heterodox economics leads. Including such links there but not the sidebar is a simple substitute for uncrowding the sidebar. Just as the WP:Lead should be simple, so arguably should the lead section of a template.
- 3.1T. The substance of ME as econ jargon is mainly derivative (as a concrete alternative counterpart to HE, including the neoclassical synthesis etc.) and comprising a large aspect of econ, including methodological aspects of micro and macro. So, inclusion of Mainstream econ in the template is a kind of double counting in the template (per micro, macro, and methodology). What sets HE apart is that its variants are less widely accepted or that its adherents don't accept ME. You don’t need a separate ME listing to suggest that when the very definition of "heterodox" suggests it.
4T. The substitution of "Heterodox" for "Heterodox approaches" is contrary to the JEL: B title (per 1T). For the general reader, the "Heterodox approaches" may be less misleading than the implied "Heterodox [economics]", because HE is not a monolithic subject but more like an umbrella term (covering for example the Austrian School and Marxist economics). Readers who click to HE find that out quickly enough, but surely it is better to avoid misleading before that. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with all stated above. Restoring template A will more effectively provide due weight. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Give me a break, Thomas.
- You are promoting weirdo economics again, as though it were significant, by mentioning heterodox without mentioning mainstream economics.
- Take this to the WikiProject Economics, to get some more eyes. 07:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have added (3.1T) as a subsidiary point above.
- 5T. Doubtless the strongly expressed opinion in the preceding edit comes after reading the heading. But also written after reading the Edits that followed the heading? The complete disconnect from the arguments that preceded it makes that harder to believe.
- 6T. The accusation of my "promoting weirdo economics again" (which seems to mean promoting HE [heterodox econ]) is a mistake at multiple levels. 1st, the proposal does not promote HE, except in a question-begging sense or in the absurd sense of my not having spoken against HE above. By the same logic, the JEL classification codes are biased for not including the subject classification of "Mainstream econ" (ME) , and The New Palgrave is biased for not having an article on ME. 2nd, my alleged HE stance (unstated above or elsewhere, whether for or against) has no relevance to the above proposal. 3rd, the depiction of me as "promoting weirdo economics again" looks like an attempt at guilt by association. And where does "again" come from, except as an added misrepresentation? The misrepresentation is a red herring as to consideration of the proposal above. WP:Civility recommends against such misrepresentation.
- 7T. I'd hope that any remaining differences would be narrowed (with silence one such index). In any case there is no hopeless deadlock at this point. If anyone wants to make additional comments, now is the time to do it. IMO, discussion ought to be concentrated here, not at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Economics sidebar: Mathematical ... methods. Still, I'd be happy to put a neutral notice there (at the top as a new subsection and with a link to here) inviting comment here. But that seems premature now, & I'd hope that it would be unnecessary. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Economies by region section
It has always struck me that heading this sidebar with a section on economies by region is rather peculiar - it seems like a specific application of macroeconomics, when a bar such as this should begin as broadly as possible, giving the most general view of economics before narrowing in on this sort of topic. Along these same lines, I think the image showing the relative per-capita GDP of different countries is not a very good summary of economics as a whole - and that a more general conceptual image (such as the supply and demand diagram that WikiProjects Economics uses as seen at the top of this page) would be a better summary of the topic. I would propose we move the economies by region section down lower and replace the header image with a more general one.
- Well, a more (IMO appropriately) charitable interpretation is that econ is all about the world & the economies or economic systems in them, including economic agents & microeconomic systems. At least per capita PPP GDP does attempt to adjust for different costs of production across different countries (though it leaves out such important things as differences in life expectancy). It's certainly a vivid way of reminding us of one aspect of differences among countries. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Welfare economics and Welfare
The sidebar currently has links to both Welfare economics and Welfare. Welfare economics is a broad and well understood topic within the subject of economics concerned wit aspects of welfare as "well-being" and it seems to be appropriately listed as a field or sub-field of the general topic of Economics. As far as I can tell, Welfare as social welfare (which is what the Welfare article is all about) is neither a field or a subfield of economics. Social welfare is a source of income for people just as wages and salaries are, but these are not listed as a field or a sub-field of economics. Some may see social [[welfare}} as driver of economic behaviour, but so too is taxation, but that is not listed as a field or subfield of economics either.
For the above reasons I would like to suggest that Welfare be dropped from the sidebar but that Welfare economics should remain in. Does anyone object to this being changed, and if so, on what grounds?22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it can be a source of confusion alright, with the same word "welfare" in each. Still, as discussed at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 2#Education economics, Welfare, & Population economics as added fields in Econ sidebar (last paragraph) (and noted above), the respective subjects of Welfare economics and Welfare differ. They also have different codes in the JEL classification codes. They can also overlap of course (depending on the applied area studied), in which case there's a distinction but not a dichotomy. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- They are different but these codes are topic index codes for general economics literature. They are not major sub-fields of the subject, which is what that bit of the box is supposed to be. I don't think inclusion on this list ought to be the criterion for inclusion in the sidebar as a sub-field. The list is huge and it couldn't all fit in the sidebar. Wouldn't the broader article Social policy be the better link instead of Welfare? The LSE for example has an Department of Social Policy. (See the full list of academic departments at top of the page). Replacing Welfare with Social policy would get round the difficulty of the ambiguous meaning and has´the advantage of revealing a broader spectrum of public policy issues in a much clearer way.126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Both the links of Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 2#Education economics, Welfare, & Population economics as added fields in Econ sidebar (last paragraph) & JEL classification codes of my previous Edit directly address the latest concern above as to Welfare. The JEL link has a footnote with a link that links explanations of different classifications, including Welfare, which also has a JEL parallel-WP-Category link at the bottom of the article.
- Social policy even lacks a JEL classification code for it. Nobody thought to classify as an econ article (yet). By contrast, "Welfare" (and poverty reduction) has its own JEL code. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am having great difficulty matching your response to the points that I raised. It seems like you have ignored my main points about the stated purpose of the box and how you justify including some topics and not others. If JEL did not see fit to index social policy that is their error of omission and I don't see why we have to repeat it. Economics and social policy are indeed very tightly bound. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)