Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:59, 23 August 2013 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Nobel Prize for Lloyd Shapley: Shapley–Folkman lemma needs FA copy-editing

Today mathematician Lloyd Shapley won the Nobel Prize in Economics (finally), and so Nobel Week would be a good time for a related featured-article.

The featured-article nomination for Shapley–Folkman lemma was stalled because of concerns about the professional-prose criterion. Help with copy-editing would be great.

In my dreams, I could imagine an animated illustration ... :)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. And I almost want to congratulate you for the prize. Volunteer Marek  18:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Family Economics Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)

I am planning to revise the family economics article. There is currently an article under this name, and it is under this wiki project. However the article is very short, actually it is categorized as stub class article. Family economics is a subject that has been developed in last few decades and there are many resources that could be used to develop the article. Currently the article is pretty much like an outline of a more developed encyclopedia article. I think the subjects that are stated in the article can be a starting point from which further development. I am planning to put the marriage, or formation of family, division of labor within the family and history of family as three possible sections that could be added to the article. I would really appreciate any general ideas on the contribution i am planning to make. One subject where I am not certain is the children. I think I may add another section on the role of children in the family, or I can cover the role of children within the family family in other sections. Also I think I might add how economics of family is related to macroeconomic policies, like welfare programs, or social movements like feminism, or socialism. However I think I might overextend the article by doing then. If you have any advice on these particular subjects where i have confusion, I would like to hear that. Kerem Cantekin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gender wage gap in Russia Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)

I am planing to write a new article on the gender wage gap in Russia. I believe that it is advisable to pay special attention to the case of Russia (and maybe other post Soviet republics) if one wants to understand in more depth the reasons for the emergence of wage gaps and apply correct policies for its eradication. Why Russia?

  • Justification: Even though the education achievements of women in Russia are higher then those of men and their participation in the labor market is roughly equal to the male participation, the wage gap in this country is persistent and substantial. Russia’s case therefore becomes of particular interest as it preaches that policies which target only an increase in women's level of education and their participation in the labor market might not be very helpful in decreasing the gender wage gap if not accompanied by more activist policies; policies which would fight against the stereotypes of the male/female division of labor and the discriminatory practices employed at the work place as well as within the family.

A very rough outline of the planned content is as follows:

  • Section 1: short description of the concept of the wage gap
  • Section 2: the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition of the wage gap
  • Section 3: Evolution of the wage gap in Russia
  • Section 4: analysis of the wage gap in Russia according to the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition.
  • Section 5: Russia’s official’s position in regard to the wage gap

Any comments or suggestions would be very welcome. Thank you. Corinabesliu1965 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Corina Besliu

New categories Economics of innovation, Economists of innovation, Sociology of innovation, Sociologists of innovation

New categories Economics of innovation, Economists of innovation, Sociology of innovation, Sociologists of innovation,... Euroflux (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusion and redundancy in articles about discounting

Isn’t Exponential discounting precisely what happens in Discounted utility calculations? My impression is that there is considerable overlap between both articles, but neither contains a link to the other. I think the difference between the two, if there is any, should be made more clear. This is also true for Time preference, Intertemporal choice, Temporal discounting and Intertemporal consumption; all these seem highly redundant to me. Unfortunately, I’m not confident enough in my understanding of the subject and my English skills to attempt to sort this out by myself, but maybe someone here can help? If not, where should I post this? --Allion (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Discount rate focuses only on the "hard economics" aspects of discounting and doesn’t link to discounted utility, time preference etc. even though the term is frequently used in these articles. There seems to be a bit of a divide between the purely economics-focused and the psychology-related articles. --Allion (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Money and Currency

There's a proposal to merge Money and Currency, that's getting more support than I would have expected. If you have any thoughts on this issue, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the talk page, much thanks. LK (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a AfD proposal to delete the currency article. If you care about whether we have or don't have an article about currency, please comment there: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Currency#Currency.
Thanks, LK (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Puerto Rico government finances

A request for comment has been opened regarding the Puerto Rico government budget balance and the public debt of Puerto Rico. Please see the discussion at:

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Family Economics Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)

I have completed my revision of family economics article. If you give me any feedback I will be appreciated. 155.97.18.137 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Kerem Cantekin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Caroline Hoxby

I'd be grateful if other editors could have a look at Talk:Caroline Hoxby, where there is a discussion about whether to include a brief passage about critique of Hoxby's work, critique that received significant coverage/discussion by other scholars and in a number of journalism outlets. At this point the discussion has only two participants (including myself) and would benefit from outside input. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC about Krugman critique on Austrian school article.

I just posted a RfC on the Austrian school talk page. I'ld appreciate it if the people here could have a look and leave a comment. Thanks. LK (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Peer Review Request

Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words

I created this entry, actions speak louder than words, because the concept is relevant to economics. However, even though all the material that I've added to the entry is relevant and verifiable, and even though I've added reliable sources, two editors have seen fit to remove all of my contributions. They also engage in the same behavior on other entries that I contribute to. To say that discussion with these editors has been unfruitful would be an understatement.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that the entire entry on actions being louder than words needs to be solely dedicated to economics...but there is an important economic significance and it should be developed. If other editors have no interest in developing any possible non-economic meanings...then that's not on me. My comparative advantage is in economics...not literature...so I'm only really interested in exposing readers to the economic significance of the expression.

In terms of my own personal editing style and preference...I get more bang for my buck by adding relevant quotes/passages to entries...rather than trying to waste my time paraphrasing what the experts have said regarding the concept. But this in no, way, shape or form prevents other editors from paraphrasing the passages that I've added. The passages that I add to the entries add value for readers. Generally I add the passages at the bottom of the entries so they do not distract readers from what editors themselves have written on the subject.

From my perspective, an entry with only expert passages is far more valuable and useful for readers than no entry at all. One of the editors I'm having difficulties with referred to my contributions as a "hodgepodge". My response was that a hodgepodge of expert passages adds more value for readers than an empty plate with a perfectly placed parsley sprig of editor prose. Style is wonderful...but not at the expense of substance. Personally, I suck at prose and paraphrasing...but I understand these concepts and wouldn't see any value to adding these passages to the entries if I thought that the substance was already adequately covered. --Xerographica (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As X has been frequently told, economics is not relevant to this concept, although the concept might be relevant to economics. Furthermore, those passages from living or recently dead authors are clear copyright violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Just like with you can't have your cake and eat it too, there are numerous reliable sources which explain the economic significance/relevance/meaning. How are the passages clear copyright violations? Seriously? They clearly fall within the scope of fair use. --Xerographica (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is

Put your money where your mouth is is another entry I created. The point was also to try and help readers understand the economic significance of the expression. Just like with actions speak louder than words...the two VDEs (Value Destroying Editors) have removed everything of value from this entry as well. Wasn't there a movie where some sort of nothingness was eating everything? Hmmm...oh yeah...it was the The Neverending Story. There's only one of me and two of them...so it would be great if any other editors who actually know a thing or two about economics...or at least have an interest in researching economics...could comment. There's really no point in me expanding entries with those two VDEs running around contracting entries that they have absolutely no interest in.

Here are a few other entries where I've also had difficulties with these VDEs...

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks --Xerographica (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the value hiding editor; any value you may have created is hidden by the vast wall of quotes, many of which are copyright violations. Specific concerns on X's edits on all of these articles have been indicated in edit summaries or on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a huge loss if the value that I add is hidden by the vast wall of quotes by Nobel Prize winning economists. But it would be a real loss if the value that you add was hidden. That's why I said that I only post the wall of "rubbish" at the bottom of the entries. So I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to remove them...rather than just add all your value above them. Oh wait, I remember why...it's because you're a VDE. --Xerographica (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That article somehow is trying to give this common colloquial expression a technical economic interpretation. This is a very weak/tortured case for an article. Arguably it can be linked to consumer's Marshallian or Hicksian demand functions (the latter can be integrated to obtain the underlying preference). Some economists probably uttered something similar at some point. After all, consumer theory is all about how the consumer spends his budget according to his preference("where his mouth is"). But it doesn't mean this expression is standard technical usage and deserve an article. Mct mht (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You and I know that this expression is what "consumer theory is all about"...so...let's keep this to ourselves? Uh, why exactly? If somebody's interested enough in the expression to actually click on the Google search result for the Wikipedia entry...then why wouldn't we want them to know about the economic significance of the expression? --Xerographica (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, my personal view from your description of your entry is that it violates Wikipedia:Relevance of content. My suggestion would be for you to consider a whole new article that discusses the relevance of such common phrases as "Actions speak louder than words" and "Put your money where your mouth is" to the subject of economics.   SteveT (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. Seems like an excellent idea, although careful study would be required to avoid Xerographica's OR or SYN. We (Wikipedians in general, or Xerographica in particular) would need to find references specifically discussing the use of the phrases in econmics, not merely references in economics which use the phrases. I'm sure we can find something in the works of David D. Friedman. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by relevance of content. Both these common expressions embody the economic concept of demonstrated preference and revealed preference. Do you agree? If you do, then where's the problem with linking to these two economic concepts from the entries of these common expressions?
Should the entry on you can't have your cake and eat it too mention opportunity cost? It didn't for the longest time...I noted the deficiency and improved the entry by specifying the connection. I don't get what value is added by withholding the economic significance of these common expressions. If we agree that these expressions do have economic significance... then why not share the significance? --Xerographica (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Note that my reference to "relevance of content" was a link to a Wikipedia page. It includes:
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
"However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." The Content section says, in part:
"In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details."
  • Keep articles focused says, in part:
"Individual articles ... should be of finite size and stay focused on a small number of topics for ease of reading and navigation. An article that is dense with information only tenuously connected to its subject does little to inform readers about that subject."
  • Use summary style says, in part:
"... [A]ny details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article."
  • Interactions between subjects says, in part:
"See also Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective trivia" This is fairly (but not overly) long, so I leave it to the reader to navigate to the page to review it rather than try to repeat it here.
Please also understand that I am not trying to suggest that what you are proposing should not be published, just that I think you are describing an entirely different article, not content that would best appear where you have tried to include it -- in Put your money where your mouth is and You can't have your cake and eat it too.   SteveT (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response...I was blocked for a week. Copying and pasting the contents of that page really hasn't helped me understand your argument. Let's consider the word "orange". There are two different meanings...the color and the fruit. A dictionary, which Wikipedia is not, has one entry that discusses every meaning of the word "orange". Wikipedia, on the other hand, has separate entries for each meaning...orange (colour) and orange_(fruit). Except, when a word occupies "prime" high exposure real estate...like Libertarianism does...then editors will conveniently ignore this rule and allow completely different meanings to share the same entry. Then they'll fight and fight and fight about how much weight to give to each meaning.
Right now there's absolutely NO content at put your money where your mouth is and actions speak louder than words. All that occupies those entries is a soft redirect to Wiktionary. But there's more than enough RS to develop the economic significance of those expressions...so why wouldn't we want to do so? The have your cake and eat it too entry, however, already has content...but is the economic meaning sufficiently different to warrant a separate entry? Well...it's significant enough to warrant it's own entry...opportunity cost...but it's not different because the expression is simply an example of the opportunity cost concept. Right now there's just one sentence in the lead that shares this partial knowledge...but it's better than nothing. --Xerographica (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this fit your project?

Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding title change of Public choice theory

Interested editors are invited to look at the discussion regarding a proposed article title change for Public choice theory. The discussion is here: "Proposed title change from Public choice theory to Public choice".--S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! Just stopping by to let you guys know that I've relisted a discussion at Talk:Public choice theory#Requested move regarding a potential title change. Discussion is invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New draft article for moving into mainspace

I was surprised to see that there wasn't an article for the Scottish Economic Society: this is a learned society more than a century old, mentioned in a number of other Wikipedia articles. So I've written a stub article. However, my job is partly funded by the SES, so I have a conflict of interest. I should emphasise that I'm doing this as a volunteer, not as any kind of PR campaign for the SES. To be completely above board, I've put the article in my user space at User:MartinPoulter/Scottish_Economic_Society. Could somebody please check that it's neutral and move it into mainspace (using the "Move" button under that arrow at the top of the page)? Thanks a lot in advance. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I expect there will be editors here who are interested in this topic. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Separation of money and state

Hello again! I think it could be helpful if some of this project's stalwarts could take a look at the new article Separation of money and state. Is it synthesis or OR? Is it another Austrian soapbox? Or is it a perfectly good article? You decide... bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Well, it doesn't look like OR to me, as it does cite independent (from the author) sources, although a number of those sources are flagged as insufficient. Austrian soapbox, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean ineligible for inclusion. It does strike me as a violation of WP:NPOV but sufficiently valuable and interesting to let it stay. However, I might be fairly easily persuaded that it should be removed as of insufficient value. If that becomes the consensus, perhaps a spot could be found for at least parts of it in Monetarism or some other existing topic into which it might be fit? SteveT (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There are serious NPV issues to be fixed. The overly promotional wording and lack of mainstream views for instance. However, I think it can exist as a standalone article. That said, the recent spamming of links in other articles need to stop. 'One-way linking' per WP:FRINGE applies. LK (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello,
Please note that Agribusiness, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Economic Calculation

The article on Economic Calculation reads like one elongated tautology: the calculation problem has not been solved because (!?) it can never be solved.

Sez who?

I saw this problem solved twenty years ago in graduate school at USF. The SFEcon solution entirely fulfills the criteria stated by Hayek in his 1945 paper. It demonstrates a general I/O structure’s progress from any chaotic state to a unique, equifinal general optimum by way of continuous series linking prices, physical quanta, and money. Economic sectors know only the shapes of their own utility tradeoffs. Commodity markets know only their own good’s current supply rate and the marginal values that good currently has for the sectors using it.

You can see the instructional video game used in my class running at www.sfecon.com. This distance learning course has been on the web since the 1990’s. It has been peer-reviewed as an instance complex, non-linear system dynamics at:

Lang, Paul: “An Essay on SFEcon’s Perfect Markets Model”. Proceedings, International Conference on Complex Systems (ICCS2004), May 16-21 2004 http://www.necsi.edu/events/iccs/2004proceedings.html

And it was the subject of a doctoral dissertation in Managerial Cybernetics at Sunderland:

Sergeyev, Andrey and Moscardini, Alfredo: “Governance of economic transitions: a case study of Ukraine”. Kybernetes, 2006, vol. 35, pp 90-107 http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/journals/kybernetes/kybernetes35.html

Sergeyev wrote his thesis on dismantling economic command in Ukraine, and the SFEcon algorithm provided the underlying model of capitalism as it would remain after the dismantling. Moscardini was Sergeyev’s thesis supervisor.

It looks to me like the people who can do the necessary math did it long ago. Meanwhile, those who can’t do the math are given all the space they need to deny any possibility that there might exist an objective counterexample their mere presuppositions. So, what are we gonna believe here? A couple of dead Austrians? Or our lyin’ eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipperke (talk • contribs) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? The title "Economic calculation" redirects to the article on cost-benefit analysis.Volunteer Marek 06:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, found it. Just for reference, the above comment is about this article: Economic calculation problem.Volunteer Marek 06:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Project AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic terrorism. Thanks. Borock (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article request: Lumpiness (economics)

This is an article request for Lumpiness (economics). I have come across this word in a number of economics articles, and its meaning is unclear. I know WP is not a dictionary, and this seems like a borderline case, so I'm open to other proposals about how to make the meaning of the economic jargon term "lumpiness" clear to readers. I was unable to find a Glossary of Economics Terms, which is where it might logically live. Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think we'll find an entry on lumpiness in the New Palgrave. Any ideas from micro people about what this should redirect to? LK (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion regarding user's subpages

User:Xerographica's walled garden

Xerographica (talk · contribs), having had difficult in inserting his WP:OR and quote farms in mainspace, appears to have started his own little walled garden in his own space:

Individually, each --like the quote farms which have been expunged from articles -- might be acceptable. However, given the large number and User:Xerographica's stated intention to fork off topcs when he doesn't get his way, I'd say he's pushing the envelope, at least. What say you? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this the best place to raise the issue, e.g., how does posting the concern here support the WikiProject? Whether or not this is the best place, here is WP:SP for your consideration. – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Srich that this isn't the right forum to discuss this issue. Maybe WP:Village pump or WT:User pages is appropriate. LK (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I say that this is a perfect place to share high quality reliable sources on important economic concepts. But I also agree that you should copy and paste it other places as well. The more places the better. Thanks! --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you'd like to actually begin doing so at any time, no one's stopping you. A change of pace in your editing habits -- as opposed to your ability to randomly cut-and-paste from Google Scholar -- would always welcome.
In any case, this is the right forum, because I'd like some expert opinion -- from actual experts -- as to whether any of it is worth salvaging, or if I should go straight to MFD to see about having the whole lot nuked as a WP:FAKEARTICLE walled garden. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem in this analysis: It's not exactly WP:FAKEARTICLE, because
Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template {{userspace draft}} can be added to the top of the page to identify these).
(from WP:FAKEARTICLE). There's no definition of "short-term" and "potentially valid" is in dispute, although I cannot name anyone other than Xerographica who has stated that they are "potentially valid". ("Potentially valid" is a matter for this forum.) I can't say that any of them are "abandoned". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Also the pieces are templated {{userspace draft}} which should keep them from showing up on search engines. The categories are hidden as well. So the real issue is whether WP:SP guidance is violated. As this thread is off topic, I think I will collapse it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The only reason this thread is "off topic" is because you're not addressing Calton's request for expert opinion on the content. Please uncollapse it. --Xerographica (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me (and others) that Calton's remarks were more focused on the POVFORK, OR, QUOTEFARM, and FAKEARTICLE aspects of the garden. These topics do not further the WikiProject. Now if Calton was concerned about an AfD, ANI, or other non-WikiProject discussion, this talk page would be an appropriate place to post a notice about the non-WikiProject discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinions on Social market economy

We are trying to find a good lead section here. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Preference revelation, club theory and benefit principle

Here are three new entries that I recently created...

There's a lot of room for improvement if anybody is interested in any of the topics. --Xerographica (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could describe the connection between demonstrated preference, revealed preference, and preference revelation. You have not refuted my opinon that there should only be one article of the three of them, but clarifying the relationship might help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your opinion...as I've said before...economics is way outside your area of expertise. The irony is that you and Rich are the ones who've done the most to block my efforts to try and make economics as accessible as possible. Look at the entry on actions speak louder than words and the entry on put your money where your mouth is. I created those entries to try and help people understand the economic relevance of preference revelation and now look at them! And here you are now...telling me that it would be helpful for me to explain the connection between demonstrated preference, revealed preference and stated preference. Seriously? Demonstrate that you're genuinely interested in learning about economics by reverting to my version of actions speak louder than words and put your money where your mouth is. Because up until now...your ONLY demonstrated AND stated preference has been to harass me --Xerographica (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. The phrases are only part of economics in the sense that everything is part of economics.
  2. [[contingent valuation|stated preference]] is an WP:EGG; you should know better than that by now.
  3. As for my specific request, you have stated the relationship between demonstrated preference and revealed preference, but neither article is more than a stub + quotations (some of them relevant, and some of them the same quotations) + "See also" (again, some of them relevant). A rational person, unfamiliar with the terms, would assume that preference revelation is the study of revealed preferences; if it is not, specific references for the use of the terms in economics should be given, not just quotes. If it is, they probably should be the same article. I'll go back and look at the articles after you have time to flesh them out, but you've been spending the time you could have been fleshing them out by adding quotes.
I know, I should discuss the edits, rather than the editor. But all the substantive edits in those articles are yours or cleanup of your edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You are not qualified to discuss the edits. Neither you, nor Rich, have near enough economics under your belt to make helpful or useful contributions. That's why your edits have been extremely disruptive. --Xerographica (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
@Arthur, Xerographica is right that the study of preference revelation (how to design mechanisms) is pretty distinct a concept from revealed preference, and (in a perfect Wikipedia) should have a stand-alone article. (IMHO, demonstrated preference can be covered in revealed preference.)
@Xerographica, Arthur is right about almost everything else. You shouldn't be so eager to create new articles. You should try to build an article in user space before creating a stub, preferably with at least a couple of cites (a bunch of tangential quotes doesn't count). Also, you should try to work more collaboratively, listening to what others say to you with patience and trying to see their point of view. Saying things like "Neither you, nor Rich, have near enough economics under your belt to make helpful or useful contributions" isn't going to help your case. LK (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding demonstrated vs revealed preference..."assuming" that people's utility functions are constant has been the primary justification for making decisions for other people. It's really not a "minor" detail. If you actually want to have an informed opinion on the subject...then read the debate between Samuelson and Buchanan.
That's a tough sell considering that the term "demonstrated preference" doesn't appear once in the pdf link. Nobody other than Rothbard ever had anything to say about "demonstrated preference," and in my opinion his distinction based on static preferences is even more vacuous than Samuelson's original construct. If I'm wrong, simply locate some RS content and silence your critics. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding everything else, again, if you actually want to have an informed opinion...then please read over every single one of my interactions with these two editors. Also, saying that I should try to work more collaboratively...by not creating new entries that everybody can contribute to...is well...absurd. You either do, or do not, find value in contributing to an entry. --Xerographica (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
To expand on LK's point: using words and phrases such as "economics is way outside your area of expertise," "Seriously? Demonstrate that you're genuinely interested in learning about economics by reverting to my version," "your ONLY demonstrated AND stated preference has been to harass me," "You are not qualified to discuss the edits. Neither you, nor Rich, have near enough economics under your belt to make helpful or useful contributions" and "If you actually want to have an informed opinion on the subject ..." do not seem to me to contribute much of value to the discussion but seem instead like attacks for the sake of attacking people with whom you disagree.   SteveT (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Right now...concentrated benefits and diffuse costs redirects to tragedy of the commons. Do you agree with this redirect? If so, can you offer any RS that support the redirect? Here's my contribution to the discussion on the tax entry. What value did Rubin contribute to the discussion? He has not ONCE cited a single RS...in any of our numerous interactions. He has absolutely NO interest in RS. If you don't believe me...then look over his contributions and share the last time he cited a RS. Yet, he makes numerous edits...but based on what? Clearly he doesn't read any RS. Here's his most recent "contribution"... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_choice. --Xerographica (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Project GAR

Please notice that I proposed a GA reassesment of Ronald MacDonald (economist). Thank you all.--Forich (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The particular article never had an initial GA assessment. It is now classed as a start. GAR discussion is collapsed as not relevant.

McEachern and the USPS

William McEachern has a section in his microeconomics textbook on the United States Postal Service...here. I'm reading it one way while another editor is reading it an entirely different way. The section isn't very long...so it would be great if you could read it over and share your thoughts on McEachern's arguments. Is he defending or critiquing the USPS? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, the question is whether he attributes the rise in the price of first-class stamp (beginning of the second paragraph) entirely to inefficiency. —Fishicus (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The way I read it, William McEachern is sympathetic to the idea that monopolists can be as efficient as firms in competitive markets (and that monopoly profits allow them to innovate), while noting that other economists believe that monopolists are less efficient. To answer your specific question, it's pretty clear that McEachern attributes the rising price of first-class stamps to rising costs and growing competition from other technologies (which presumably reduces volume and increases per unit costs.) LK (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, LK. —Fishicus (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about tone and undue weight

At Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision_making there is a discussion about whether an article in this WikiProject's scope should have been tagged for unencyclopedic tone. Additional perspectives on this would be welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Freedom of choice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom of choice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Clemens August Andreae

Would anyone mind beefing up Clemens August Andreae, particularly if you know German? He was a prominent Austrian economist and is one of the famous people who died on a plane crash in Thailand in 1991. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Female Labor Force Participation in Muslim Countries

I propose to write an article providing a variety of statistics on female participation in the formal economic system of predominately Muslim countries. Some of the indicators that would be included in the article are: female labor force participation rate, female employment rate subdivided into full and part-time employment, unemployment rate, employment by sector and age, duration of employment, types of jobs women hold, advancement opportunities (how many women hold executive jobs in the nation's biggest companies), and wage disparity with men. These indicators would provide a somewhat comprehensive but accessible look into the economic life of women in Muslim countries. This topic is clearly relevant to economics as it touches on labor markets, wages, and the interplay of social and market forces. It is also of interest in the development field of economics with so many theories about the role of human capital, plentiful labor, and increased productivity leading to economic growth. An article on the presence of women in the labor force of Muslim nations would provide interesting data for users interested in the economic development of these nations. It has also received little attention, from what I can tell, on Wikipedia. Centralizing this data in one article would enable users to glean an important overview of women's role in the formal economy of several Muslim nations. The nations I propose to present in this article are: Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. These nations were chosen because they are all majority-Muslim nations (50%+), are prominent and, mostly, populous Muslim nations, and provide at least some regional representation of the Muslim world. Data on these nations, for the most part, is plentiful as compared with other Muslim nations. Some of the sources of information I have found are the World Bank Group, the International Labor Organization, UNESCAP, SESRIC, and a few articles on development from various journals such as the International Journal of Sociology of the Family. Is this a topic that should be included in the Wikiproject: Economics? What other details should be included in the article? What other sources of information should I cite?

DanSCohen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Forced/Free rider problem

Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are making and/or supporting edits on the free rider problem and the forced rider problem which do not reflect what the reliable sources have to say about the topics... Talk:Forced_rider_problem#See_also_items_removed. But I might be wrong. It would be great if any outside editors could evaluate how well their edits match the reliable sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing 'Motherhood Penalty' Article

I am going to expand and revise upon the Wikipedia article “Motherhood penalty”. I will specifically be focusing on the perceived cultural tension between mothers and workers and the effects of the motherhood penalty as well as employer bias and discrimination. I think it is important to revise and expand upon the “Motherhood penalty” article because it has different implications and solutions for the wage gap than previous theories. The motherhood penalty shifts the blame from mothers and their choice to employers and their implicit biases. This ideological shift in itself helps perceptions of the culture of motherhood, gender roles, and gender equality in the workplace. The motherhood penalty asserts that children are not the direct cause of the wage gap. Instead, it is employers’ perceptions that mothers have a lower commitment and work effort compared to nonmothers because of their duties and commitment to their family. These perceptions lead to biases and discrimination in regards to wages as well as hiring and promotions of mothers. Women already face a wage gap and being a mother just compounds that effect. I plan to draw on case studies the work of Deborah Anderson, Melissa Binder, Michelle Budig, Paula England, and Shelley Correll. I would appreciate any comments or feedback.Mmcolson (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Women Migrant Workers

Template:WAP assignment I plan to write an article detailing and exploring the phenomenon of Women Migrant Workers. Specifically, I want to expound on the circumstances and atmosphere of those seeking work abroad, but also the economic impacts that these women make. Economically, they affect both the country in which they work, as well as the country from which they are from. Their economic ties to their families, and the opportunities abroad may or may not positively impact their families. I want to focus on their economic impacts, gains, and losses, but provide some background and human interest into the situations that these women face. This is not an article on sex trade or migrant sex workers. This may be tied to feminist economics, the postmodern and modern approaches. I would appreciate any feedback or ideas to add to this article. Whereas my intent is to focus on the economic impacts, I am not opposed to providing other details and exploring other parts of this topic. Erinbb1 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article on gift economy could use help from people understanding economics.

Hi. I don't know if this is the correct place to ask fro this. However, I noticed that the article gift economy seriously could use input from people that have some understanding in economics and how this topic has been handled there in the literature lately. Dumazdamaz (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to the Individual Development Account (IDA) Page

Template:WAP assignment The current article on Individual Development Account lacks history/background information on IDAs, detailed information on the processes of IDA programs, a global perspective on the tool, credible references, well-supported & updated data and criticisms of the program. These features are crucial for providing a comprehensive and neutral outlook on Individual Development Accounts in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. In light of this, I propose making the following changes to this article throughout the course of the next two months:

  • Add a short section on history of the tool to provide context for the rest of the article.
  • Expand the section on 'Purpose' to include the interaction of IDA usage with domestic policies.
  • Add subsections under 'Programs' to cover programs in both the United States and in other parts of the world.
  • Update the section on 'Usage Date' to include well-supported recent data since the current reference link is broken. Also, I will be renaming the section 'Data and Impact' and expanding the section by adding available scholarly analysis of the data.
  • Adding a section on 'Criticisms' of IDA programs and implementation to provided a balanced perspective.
  • Adding scholarly references for the added information as well as for existing information with broken reference links

For a thorough presentation of the project and a resourceful entry, I would like to request suggestions to expand upon the ideas I present here. Please feel free to propose additional changes that you would like to see made to this page. Thank you.

Kjhooda (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformative economics

This AFD discussion could use economics input. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kuznets curve - proposed split off

Hello, I would like to propose splitting off a new Environmental Kuznets curve article from the current Kuznets curve article. Good idea? Please discuss here. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gross State Product

The numbers for the U.S. states are for 2010 and 2011 data have been available since June 2012. Numbers for 2012 will be out in June 2013. Data are available on the BEA and FRED websites.John Tepper Marlin (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Cypriot crisis terminology and topics

Hi, there are a few articles related to the Cypriot finance crisis that could do with some involvement of more editors. Please see WP:ITNC#2012 Cypriot Financial Crisis levy on savings EC ECB IMF, 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis, Bank deposit levy, bail-in, Haircut (finance), etc. There is also a note about the Cypriot deposit insurance at Deposit_insurance#European_Union. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I need help urgently

Pardon my English because I am a German speaker. A few weeks ago I revised some untenable assertions at the article Social market economy. Another German user reverted my revisions and because of the resulting edit war an administrator blocked the article in my version. The other German user put pressure on the administrator and the administrator promised to alter the article if the other German user can find supporters and get majority. After that the other German user rounded up several users he knows of the German and English wikipedia. This group of users voted for an alteration of the introductory section although nobody of this group can reason why the introductory section needs to be altered. My repetitious question what is incorrect about the current introductory section never has been responded. Instead they submitted always new suggestions for lead ignoring all my justified objections against that suggestions. After they voted for a suggestion for lead that is provable a corruption of historical facts. The statements of this suggestion are not verified by the cited sources and are counterfactual as I demonstrated explicitly a bunch of times. Now they achieved that the article is unblocked and they edited a new introductory section [1]. Nothing of this introductory section can be verified by the quoted sources. It is all totally fabricated and it is the exact opposite of the historical facts that can be proved by many reliable sources. Already the first sentence, the definition of the lemma, is sourced with a glossary of a newspaper that don't verify this statement. Even more this definition of the lemma is absolutely counterfactual because Ludwig Erhard was a bitter opponent of social insurance schemes [2][3][4][5] so social insurance schemes can't be the basic characteristic to determine the social market economy. Every sentence of this new introductory section can not be verified by the quoted sources and if you want I can show you this. Please help me! --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And just what help is it you are seeking?Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Do not feed the trolls! --Ephynes (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stewardship Economy

Can someone review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stewardship Economy? Thanks! heather walls (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I got it. EllenCT (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Liberal paradox

Hello all. I have recently rewritten liberal paradox. I would greatly appreciate someone taking a look at it and providing any feedback you might think appropriate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Help filling out templates

Lately, I have been trapsing through WP:VA to find articles in need of navboxes. I think I have identified the three most needed economists in this regard as {{Adam Smith}}, {{John Maynard Keynes}} and {{John Kenneth Galbraith}}. I have mostly just found subjects with at least four notable works in need of templates. Each of these templates could use some broadening of major theories, schools of thought and such to be added to them. I will probably begin deploying these templates in the next day or two, but editing would be useful either before or after such deployment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The equation of exchange is an equilibrium condition, not a dynamic relationship

In the article "Equation of exchange", in the "Applications - Quantity theory of money" section, and in the article "Quantity theory of money" in the "2.1 A rudimentary version of the quantity theory" section, the differential equation dP/P = dM/M is converted to an equation involving derivatives with respect to time by dividing by dt.

This is dangerously misleading, because the equation of exchange is a statement of an equilibrium condition, not a dynamic statement of instantaneous cause and effect. That is, any time-based model that uses the equation of exchange to implement the quantity theory of money must take into account the lags in the system. It is not even approximately true that (dP/P)/dt = (dM/M)/dt - (dQ/Q)/dt + (dV/V)/dt !

I have not edited the pages myself (yet) because I see that they are part of a special project being developed by appropriate experts. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia; if my understanding of the Wikipedia process is correct, would one of you experts please fix them? Or am I supposed to do it myself and explain my reasons on the Talk page?

Robert G Chamberlain (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Robert G Chamberlain

Final Good vs Consumer Product

The article Final Good is misleading and should be merged with the article Consumer Product. By definition a final good is good or service that is consumed by the end user and does not require any further processing. Therefore, the article is not wrong but a general user might not search for final goods when looking for consumer goods. I would hence suggest to add the wording final good under a new category called Synonyms within the Consumer Product article. What do you think? Jaxkhug (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors Invited to Laissez Faire article

There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is link to 'Economy of the United States' sample article. This exact format can be repeated for all 196 countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

I am looking for volunteers to duplicate this model for all 196 countries in the following Wikimedia project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Need help at Law of value

I hope this isn't considered improper, but an article (Law of value) that might be under the scope of this project needs a lot of help. I've requested help at the appropriate WikiProjects (Socialism and Philosophy), but this article is exceedingly long and extremely wide in scope. It touches on metaphysics, socialism, communism, and capitalism, making it a bit difficult to properly categorize. It's full of original research and has trouble maintaining a neutral POV, and it's entirely too long (over 250KB, currently). The size and scope make it too overwhelming for the small group trying to fix it, and we'd really appreciate any help that this WikiProject could spare, even if it's just to point us in the direction of more appropriate WikiProjects to harass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing the 'Economy of _______' pages

The 'Economy of ______' pages are very educational and are an awesome collection of economic data. I think that these articles would be improved if they were modified to become more comparable and uniform.

I believe that these pages would be improved with a standardized and simplified format. This would allow for greater comparability and public understanding. Public understanding is a major goal for Wikipedia.

Below are the Wikipedia Contents of the four biggest economies. As you can see, the Contents are inconsistent between them. I believe this can be fixed. Has the Wikipedia community ever tried to fix this in the past?


Economy of the United States

1 History 2 Overview 3 Employment 4 Research, development, and entrepreneurship 5 Income and wealth 6 Financial position 7 Industry Sectors 8 Notable companies and markets 9 Energy, transportation, and telecommunications 10 Finance 11 Health care 12 International trade 13 Currency and central bank 14 Law and government 15 See also 16 References 17 External links


Economy of China

1 History 2 Government role 3 Regional economies 4 Development 5 Macroeconomic trends 6 Financial and banking system 7 Industry Sectors 8 Labor and welfare 9 External trade 10 Foreign investment 11 Demographics 12 Transportation and infrastructure 13 Science and technology 14 See also 15 References 16 External links


Economy of Japan 1 Economic history 2 Infrastructure 3 Macro-economic trend 4 Services 5 Industry 6 Mining and petroleum exploration 7 Agriculture 8 Labor force 9 Law and government 10 Culture 11 Other economic indicators 12 See also 13 Notes 14 External links


Economy of Germany

1 History 2 Macroeconomic data 3 Economic region 4 Natural resources 5 Sectors 6 Infrastructure 7 Technology 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)



I second this proposal. Standardizing 'Economy of ______' pages could be useful and we have wikipedians from many countries around the world, and thats a plus.

Seems like the proposal now exists on Meta-Wiki. πr2 (t • c) 00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I created https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Contents are: 1. States, 2. Industries, 3. Corporations, 4. Employment, 5. Fiscal Budget, 6. Monetary Policy, 7. Creditors, 8. Cities, 9. International Accounts 9. History" — where does income, wealth, poverty, and inequality fit in to that? EllenCT (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am considering adding a 'Consumer' section. Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Those are pretty important aspects, and in my view neglecting them leads to all kinds of problems. Other statistics, such as the proportion of consumer spending comprising the economy, are very important for projecting tax incidence changes, but they weren't even in the US economy article until today. You might want to spend some more time researching all the various aspects that existing articles do and should currently include so you don't end up limiting the WP:COMPREHENSIVE aspects of the articles. EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
There will be a Consumer section to have GINI, savings, etc. I must also say that there is value in simplicity. This model is designed to be easy to understand. Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of simplicity, but you may be able to do much better if you spend some time to research, think it through, and ask for feedback from others before proposing a standardized outline format. For example, why "International Accounts" and not "Trade"? Why are "States" and "Cities" separate sections in distant parts of the outline? What is the scope of "History" -- most of the Economy of____ articles don't have much history now. Currently the US economy article has some detail on the sizes of various sectors such as manufacturing and finance. Do you want to include relative levels of business investment, too? Why don't you try converting one of the existing articles in to a format you think would be suitable for standardization in WP:USERSPACE and then ask people to have a look and provide feedback?EllenCT (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the US bailout closer to $8 trillion or $30 trillion?

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1970414 looks plausible to me. Does anyone see any errors in it? EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, that paper is selfpub, and so not a reliable source, not until it has been accepted into a peer reviewed journal. It can be mined for reliable sources (check the References), but that's it. LK (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with LK; removing all working papers is unnecessarily restrictive. The paper is a product of a university in collaboration with the Levy Economics Institute think tank, and it provides a worthwhile perspective on the question. Requiring think tanks to publish all their papers in order to be used is too restrictive; many are not published, or if they are published, may be published inside in-house journals (e.g., The RAND Journal of Economics). Now, you might find that wikilawyers have something of an upper-hand with Wikipedia's self-published sources policy, but usually they can be reasoned with. II | (t - c) 16:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gold standard

A page under this wikiproject, Gold standard, has been getting some POV edits. More eyes needed. FurrySings (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: List of countries by nominal GDP growth rate

Please join the discussion here. -Zanhe (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Review request

Please review this edit. EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me! The content you removed looks to me to be kindergarten-level analysis (although by saying that, I risk insulting many kindergarteners <grin>). SteveT (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It was not my removal, and I believe the removed text is soundly reasoned, because the private sector is more efficient than the public sector except in cases of perverse incentives. EllenCT (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with EllenCT. It's a reasonable point made (apparently) by the IMF as well as the foundational figure in economics, Pigou. However, I think it could be worded a little more tentatively, since economics is not a precise science. II | (t - c) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is further discussion on this at Talk:Progressive tax#Contentious aggregate demand / consumer spending / 1950 vs. 2012 comparison on which additional opinions would be very helpful. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Another request to review a questionable deletion

Please review this edit. It is not my edit, but I would like more experienced eyes to have a second look at it please. I would not have deleted the paragraph. EllenCT (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Half the article is about the effects of inequality, so it seems inappropriate for the lead to skip over this discussion. In the interest of compromise and acknowledging the imperfections of econometrics (and particularly the fundamental problems in doing international or historical statistical comparisons), the conclusions could be perhaps be written less forcefully but the paragraph should remain. However, I haven't reviewed the sources and research. II | (t - c) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence is not supported by the sources. I search the sources for those terms and came up empty. The statement included is phrased as fact, in Wikivoice, and the intro of one of the supporting sources states the exact opposite. So it's an opinion depending on the economic conditions of which equality may play a small part - equality doesn't necessitate increased median earnings. In many cases, increased economic growth causes inequality. Rising tide can lift all boats. Morphh (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Economic Map

I am looking for advice on this topic. This post is related to the previous section.

I recently tried to add an article named Economic summary of the United States to Wikipedia and it was rejected.

My goal get help from other Wikipedians to duplicate this article with the same exact format for every country in the world (196 total). This project can go even further and have an article for every state and city. The format used in this project is simple yet sophisticated. The statistics are available on government websites. There is nothing in the world that resembles this project and I believe that this project is in line with Wikipedia's goals. There is huge value added in compiling various government statistics from around the internet all into one location that is easy to access.

Versions for China and Japan are also available to show how this project would look for other countries.

For a more localy focused area, the case of Salt Lake City was treated as an example.

About a month ago, I created this Global Economic Map Wikimedia project proposal, but I was told that my project belonged on the normal Wikipedia.

After having my article be rejected from the normal Wikipedia, I am confused about where my article belongs. I want my article to be in a place where it can be seen by the public and inspire other people to create duplicates for other countries. Should my article be included in the normal Wikipedia under the title Economic summary of the United States? Should these articles have their own Wikimedia project? Is there another solution that I'm not thinking of? Mcnabber091 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any difference between the titles "Economy of ..." and "Economic Summary of ..."? For me, it means the same. The article Economy of the United States does exist already. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to add another "Economic summary of..." article. Sorry if I have misunderstood your intention, but I don't quite get the difference. ...In my opinion, these articles do all belong to Wikipedia - except you want to express something totally different that I just do not get. Jaxkhug (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here [6] concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics/Archive_8&oldid=569827632"