Talk:Economics terminology that differs from common usage

The suggestion for speedy deletion is baffling. Exactly zero percent of the information in this article is in the article Outline of economics. The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage explains conflicts of terminology between lay people and economists. The article Outline of economics contains nothing but links to other economics articles, with no explanations or even discussions of terminology whatsoever, much less terminological conflicts. The speedy-deletion suggestion was not well thought out. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Duoduoduo, the article seems to be a POV essay and original research and as such I'm nominating it for deletion via WP:PROD. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. It's not a point-of-view essay -- any academic economist (which obviously neither you nor the other nominator are!) will recognize these contrasts in terminology. And for the same reason, it's not original research. I publish my original research in refereed scholarly economics journals, not Wikipedia.

The reason this article is needed is made pretty clear in the intro: technical terminology can differ from common usage, and readers may want to familiarize themselves with the difference. It's just like having the Wikipedia article American and British English differences -- that's neither a point-of-view article nor original research either.

The article is a stub and is labelled as such, and I plan to add references to it (and hope that other constructive editors will do so as well).

You have engaged in an abuse of the WP:PROD tag. The page WP:PROD says the following: "Proposed deletion is a process used for nominating pages for uncontroversial deletion, and deleting such pages after 7 days if no objections are raised. It is a way to suggest deletions that no editor would disagree with, and should not be used to side-step AfD discussion for articles that an editor may wish to keep. Its purpose is to reduce the load on the Articles for deletion process, for cases where articles are uncontestably deletable, yet fail to meet the criteria for speedy deletion.(italics added).

Since deletion of this article is not "uncontroversial", nor is the deletion something that "no editor would disagree with", your use of this tag to sidestep AfD discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please familiarize yourself with the rules before using deletion tags. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of 'sidestepping' AfD. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have encountered these problems whenever I have taught macroeconomics. I start out telling them that they are going to lose points on exams because they didn't pay attention to the meaning of words like investment and money. Yet when I ask a question about the effects of an increase in the money supply, several students always answer the question thinking there was an increase in wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.199.38 (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Should definitely not be CSD, not even prod

The article is badly in need of referencing, but the underlying concept (that terms have different meanings in economics and ordinary usage) and can be sourced. While the tone may be essay-like at present, it has potential. This is the type of article that we should be encouraging, not discouraging at WP.--SPhilbrickT 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationality

People think economic rationality is omniscience and characterized by a striving towards an objective good. Rather it should be explained as optimizing a system of utility functions which account for subjective value, uncertainty, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.125.33 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've put it in. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economics terminology that differs from common usage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219215409/http://www.nber.org/cycles.html to http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Recession topic is too USA centric

Too much focus is given to the NBER, which is a US institusion f 179.191.118.82 (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)