Template talk:Economics sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Economics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. 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

I have replaced the image File:Countries by GDP (PPP) Per Capita in 2015.svg, with an image of a supply & demand graph. Reason: the map is verging on pov, and is quasi-sociological, quasi-political. It is an example of how economic data is used to make political statements, a valid function of economics, but one step up from the topic itself. A supply and demand graph is one of the most basic assumptions of Economics, and thus suitable for a template covering a wide range of articles.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I agree the image should not be POV or quasi-political. However, Adam Smith, Ricardo etc. all believed a commodities price and value came from the labor that was taken to create it, the later idea that labor's contribution to a commodity price and value should be ripped out is completely political. Such a price graph is a basic assumption of neoclassical Economics, not Economics in general.

I've replaced it with a picture of the Phillips curve. There may be a picture more neutral and non-political than the Phillips curve, in which case that would be better. Maybe something like the image above. Minimax Regret (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supply and demand is an obsolete theory. How about a illustration of a circular flow? 128.132.1.10 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)RLV[reply]

I think the current image (supply/demand) diagram is kind of strange because it put this theory on page that are not related to supply&demand. I think we should remove it. Finding a neutral image isn't bound to fail? Gagarine (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove the image. Until we do not find a good one, I propose to stay image free. Yet, I'm really doubtful we can find one: economy is macro and micro, is about individual, firm, country, money, environment, etc... some approach are very linked to psychology, when other use model based of mathematical optimization. It's very diverse. Gagarine (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, image used by https://www.core-econ.org/ are pretty good (but it will not works as a vignette). This one in particular https://core-econ.org/the-economy/book/images/web/unit-19-header-2048.jpg . We can find a similar image, that show more "what we study" that "how we study it". Gagarine (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. Looks like someone got to it.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Schumpeter to notable economists. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is already included on the list. Trakking (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The section "By Application" defined within list3 is intertwined with the column definition, such that: - the section is opened - the column is opened - the section is closed - the column is closed

| list3name = application
| list3title = Applications
| list3 =
<section begin=By application />
{{collist|colwidth=100px|
* [[Agricultural economics|Agriculture]]
* ...
* [[Welfare economics|Welfare]]<section end=By application />
}}
<!--
| list4name = economists

This is causing an issue in the Template:Economics.

It would be convenient if the column were opened before the section, just inverting the two lines:

{{collist|colwidth=100px|
<section begin=By application />

AnnibaleA (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done in this edit. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new revision on the 8th of January by @Closed Limelike Curves is substantially less broad. The top-level that is now displayed is all situated within classical economics. Mention of heterodox economics is removed entirely. Surely the top level should be focused on the broadest possible array of sub-fields? -- naught101 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Brief note: "classical" has a specific meaning in history of economics, referring to the political economy of e.g. Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The usual term for what we're talking about would be academic or mainstream economics.)

I wouldn't be opposed to adding some links to notable ideas from outside mainstream economics which later found broader support. That said, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:DUEWEIGHT) require reporting on different views based on how well-represented they are in the academic literature, instead of giving equal weight to every idea (regardless of how well-accepted or well-discussed it is). Since heterodox schools (by definition) have little-to-no support in academic economics, this means our sidebars can't spend that much time discussing them, the same way sidebars on medicine don't include lots of links to alternative medicine concepts, or how sidebars on evolution try to cover evolutionary theory (instead of just listing all the biggest biology departments and creationist think tanks). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the "mainstream", agree. Your argument makes sense when it applies to singular views that don't have much support. But as it states on the the page, heterodox economics is not a singular school of thought, it's a collection of many schools that criticise mainstream economics. As such, it makes sense to include it (but I agree, not every specific type of heterodox economics). Note also that the Template:Evolution_sidebar does include "Objections / Controversy", which is very analogous. I added a link in the list of branches/fields (which is hidden be default). -- naught101 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]