Talk:Basic Economics

NPOV

User:DGG suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic Economics this article may not be neutral. Perhaps he would like to expand on this here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Just read that users "biases" section on his talk page bio and you'll understand why he tried to delete this article. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Undue" removal

Can we get an explanation for why that content constitutes "undue?" Squatch347 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE requires an RS - this is a think-tank's blog - David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and there is no consensus that I'm aware of the Foundation for Economic Education is an unreliable source, nor that articles published by them should be treated in any specific way. So WP:RS doesn't apply to this. It would only be undue if we are devoting content to minority opinions or fringe opinions as you originally noted. But this certainly isn't that under any wiki finding and it directly relates to content in the book. Squatch347 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a source advocating fringe economics, and almost certainly not an RS; FEE recently came up at WP:RSN, where it was considered fringe even in the context of other libertarian thinktanks. This is about economics, which has a plague of cranks; solid RSes are what would be needed here. FEE isn't a deprecated source, just an unreliable one; but its unreliability was obvious even to a fan of Cato and Heritage - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I notice that conversation had a relatively small number of participants. Are any of the ideas being referenced in this article fringe? If not, then I'm not sure what objection is being made. Squatch347 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The proper solution per WP:FRINGE is to be harshly WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For fringe theories, sure. But what in the removed quote qualifies as fringe theory? We should also note that that section is talking about a section of this work, so fringe is a bit relaxed. Fringe relates to Wiki's overall treatment of a topic, not its description of an argument made by an author in a work. Squatch347 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Forbescon

Hi Squatch347, you helpfully cite the Forbes RSP entry when reverting SPECIFICO here, however, WP:FORBESCON (the RSP entry right beneath the one you are citing) applies given that Mark Hendrickson is a contributor, not a staff writer. I think there is agreement that he is a contributor per this edit summary, so can we remove the part as WP:FORBESCON says that pieces written by Forbes contributors are treated as generally unreliable and to be evaluated as SPS (Hendrickson is not an expert)? 15 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, Hendrickson is a published economist with work in reviewing economics literature and popular press economics so there is an argument for SME. I think this would be more relevant if we were citing it for something beyond a reception section. The content and the section it is referenced in are clearly opinions so I'm not sure if the WP:FORBESCON concerns on reliability are as relevant. Squatch347 (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As I've tried patiently to explain to you on your user talk page, there is no reason to use a random blog post when the works of Sowell, a notable economist, have been reviewed in mainstream sources by other notable and qualified reviewers. Find a valid source and give Sowell the respect he deserves. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

And, as I patiently explained to you, Hendrickson is a qualified economist, he has a history of reviewing popularization of economics works. And, as I've patiently asked for on my talk page, you are using policy outside of anything it actually says. I'm open to being wrong, but I need something in policy if I'm going to take seriously the idea that this is against policy. Squatch347 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has stated this is "against policy" Your edit has received no support from others. It is contrary to RSPN on its face and you rushed to repeat insertion after it was removed. The WP:ONUS for inclusion of any content is on the editor who advocates inclusion, and in this case given the other reasons relating to WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY, it is clearly UNDUE unless and until you achieve consensus to include it here on talk. Please remove it. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you have that a bit backwards. This wasn't my edit. I reverted an edit earlier attempting to remove it because that change didn't have consensus. The onus (as I referenced on my talk page) falls on the person requesting the change before there was a dispute. "[P]er WP:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." This is the version before the proposal, for which no consensus has been achieved [1]. Squatch347 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter -- it's a WP:PRIMARY sourced content of a self-published opinion of a reader of no particular distinction. You reinserted it after this was explained to you. Somebody will remove it and please don't edit war. Use the Kirkus review below or find other RS reviews or opinions of independent notable economists that would pass muster as primary sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is a review from Kirkus Reviews which is listed as RS at RSPN. See here. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC) The Forbes Contributor content has been reinserted in the article -- could somebody please deal with this. I am not going to edit war with the user who insists it belongs in the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)