Talk:Economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Economy, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the importance scale
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Economy (see Moe's rationale below)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Economy (activity) → Economy – Economy is just a redirect to this article. Mace 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose - I would move Economy (disambiguation) to Economy and keep this page where it is. —Mets501 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Move Economy (disambiguation) to Economy. Vegaswikian 06:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. See comment below. Duja 08:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same suggestion as Mets501 and Vegaswikian. --Pgreenfinch 10:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support following Duja's reasoning, below. If the move-attempt fails, however, then I support GTBacchus' suggestion to temporarily list it on WP:DPL, let it get cleaned up a bit and re-evaluate it later. -- Arvedui 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a clearly the most widely used definition of "economy" - Bssc81 05:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jonathunder 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see anything at economy (disambiguation) that comes close to the relevance of this article. I also consider the qualifier (activity) unhelpful. This could quite as well refer to economy as in frugality (which btw, should be merged anyway). ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

With all due respect to the opposers, it's easier said than done. What links here for Economy shows ~600 incoming links, so a bot intervention would be required to fix them all. Of those, the majority is result of (to an extent indiscriminate) linking like economy of the area is based on fishing and agriculture..., which shows that this is the primary topic. Yet many others are result of misspelling, ...he studied economy (instead of economics). I didn't find usages related with fuel economy, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those, too. The current situation is not acceptable though -- Economy should be either a dab page or devoted to Economy (activity), but not a redirect. Duja 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not an expert in this area. But a quick check of a few of those redirects tells me an expert needs to look at them all and point them to the right article. I'm far from convinced that the majority of these are correctly redirected now. In any case, the number of links that need to be cleaned up is not a reason to not make a change. With a dab page in place, any editor will be made aware of the problem and can fix it. hahahahahahahahah Vegaswikian 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But I still don't see which alternative meaning of economy as listed in Economy (disambiguation) is so important that it justifies making Economy a dab page—it includes world economy, few obscure cities, and few other esoteric terms. Even if we fix all the links now, editors will likely continue to link economy from articles, without bothering to check that they really want economy (activity) (which is IMO reasonable expectation). The only competing term in terms of intended wikilinking seems to be Economics, but it's simply a matter of misspelling/misunderstanding. Economic system is mentioned there, but IMO it's unlikely to be mistakenly wikilinked as economy.
      Yes, the incoming wikilinks should be fixed indeed — however, it's far less job (for present and for future) to fix only the wrong ones (of intended meaning "economics" or "fuel economy"), than to fix them all (now and in future). Duja 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Did you miss 'I'm far from convinced that the majority of these are correctly redirected now.' The point is that many or the links that are redirected appear to be going to the correct article. I believe that policy is to not redirect many users to an incorrect article. Just being the most common is not in and of itself a good reason. As I said, a quick check convinced me that too many articles are being redirected to the wrong article. If this fails, an alternative might be to redirect to world economy which would list the dab article. Vegaswikian 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • A quick check of mine shows that this is the intended article in the majority of cases: first 20 or so of what links here link to economy (activity) as desired. Exceptions do exist, as you noted: judging solely on the article headings, they appear to be in the magnitude of 5-10%. However, we appear to read the policy in a different way. From WP:DAB#Primary topic:

          When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

          It is clearly impossible to ensure that all editors will correctly link to the desired article in all ocasions if they don't look—the point of the guideline is to ensure that at least a majority does so.Duja 07:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that occurs to me is that, if the dab page were moved to Economy for a while, it could be listed at WP:DPL, where armies of volunteers would sort out all of the incoming links, and redirect them to appropriate locations. At that point, it would be easier to determine that Economy (activity) is the primary use, move the dab page (now link free!) back to Economy (disambiguation), and move Economy (activity) to Economy without messing up any links.

The second thing that occurs to me is — that sounds convoluted. Still, I can't convince myself it's not the best way to handle this situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome

It appears the article would be better off linked to Economy rather than Economy (activity). Reason(s) being:

  • The general consensus above was for moving to Economy.hahahahahahahahaha
  • Economy redirecting here is rather redundant considering the title has a disambigusation in it.
  • Most things withn the similar name "Economy" are not related in the disambiguation page, as thus doesn't need the (activity) part as it only obscures making links to the most commonly used term.
  • This appears to be the most common usage of the word for economy and having a disambiguation page linked at the top won't hurt anything
  • It appears most redirects have been correctly redirected to the appropriate article
  • People link Economy and theres nothing we can do to stop that. Although, it may be better to convience ourself by having redirect to a disamb. page, there are lots of editors who make these changes all the time and if I'm not mistaken, there is a WikiProject/organization devoted to fixing these kinds of things.

If you have any comments, please contact me or drop me a note here. semper fi — Moe 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 05:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] New approach

Dear Moe, dear Gurch, I'm going to make a new proposal for a interdisciplinary definition of Economy using primary literature and giving weblinks. Shall I firstly send it to you? If I don't hear from you I will offer it within the next days.--Jörg Sutter 05:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No thats fine, I don't need to supervise you :) WP:BOLD semper fi — Moe 18:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! How can I upload an image? It's always quick deleted.--Jörg Sutter 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To upload an Image, go to Special:Upload. See also Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images for more information. If you have anymore questions, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page :) semper fi — Moe 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I found out, that the article was removed by a spammer. Please have a look, if your changes during the last 6 days have not been integrated. Have a look also at my proposals in economics. Best regards from--Jörg Sutter 13:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions; this page was in dire need for improvement. Still, I removed the picture from the article, as it doesn't really illustrate anything relevant; actually, I don't foresee what kind of images would be called for in such article, but I'm open to suggestions. Duja► 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Duja, you removed the hole article, not only the image!--Jörg Sutter 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

??? I didn't remove anything? Duja► 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Duja, it's back yet. Let's discuss the image: [love you always and for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Shenzhen_High_Tech_Fair.jpg] I chosed it because it shows a fair - a traditional place of economy - globalization - meeting between east and west and even an recommanded economist. In the German Wikipedia they have a small image of money only. But money isn't significant for economy. --Jörg Sutter 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I can't get myself to read the symbolism of that picture as creatively as you :-), and I doubt most other readers would. It's not obvious that it's a fair, it's not obvious who is the man, and it looks like just another picture of teacher and students. It's certainly suitable for Alexander Dill article, but sorry, it doesn't look like satisfying WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity in this article. Duja► 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Duja, I want to improve the article now and add more images. It takes me a lot of time to get the rights. I prefer images of REAL people to only symbolic images. But I can't work hours for an image, then show it to you and let it delete. Please help to bring your own material to the article, discuss the contents. I will offer you the following: The contents I bring to here will always be optimized, but please only delete them, if YOU HAVE A REAL ALTERNATIVE. Something is always better than nothing. Best regards--Jörg Sutter 07:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the last assertion ("Something is always better than nothing"). As the article contents have to stay on topic and for the reader's benefit, so do the images. Images should not have only decorative function. I still don't see what kind of images are called for for this kind of "broad overview" article, and if something distracts the reader for no good reason, it shouldn't be in the article. For example, it might be interesting to show Pie charts of production distribution per sectors (primary/secondary/tertiary) in various times or continents, but even that is a stretch. But I don't see a need for pictures.
Note that your picture is not deleted, just unused. It's still at Image:Alexander_Dill_at_the_Shenzhen_High_Tech_Fair.jpg and might be used in a suitable article; but again, I don't think this is the one. Duja► 10:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is a problem in the historical section of this "new approach"

First this section is overgrown and should be an article in itself, second it is more focused on the history of economic theories, which is the field of economics, instead of economy, which should describe concretely how human productive and consuming activities evolved from mammoth hunting to internet surfing. --Pgreenfinch 06:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pgreenfich, I'll be doing that, but please don't forget, that economy and economics appeared on the scene as a subject of knowledge in the late 18th century. When you mention mammoth hunting as an economic activity, you talk on basic needs. Of course there are economic theories explaining economy as an activity to fullfil physical needs. But there was no market for mammoth, no salary paid to hunt them and no capital to start mammoth ventures. If we really go back to the roots, the sacrifice is the first economic act. Meaning: I sacrifice something to the Gods hoping that they will prefer me. Nevertheless this will be a fascinating discussion. Economy is stronger related to religion than to biology. Why else would values and assets than be so central for economic activity? Hear you later, your--Jörg Sutter 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sample for Pgrfeenfich:f

The knowledge about economy is interpreted and collected by all sciences and is part of the scientific commons. Although the economics belong to the social sciences the major focus is on social action between people. Economical principles as effectiveness or competiton are used to explain phenomena in nature as well. The process of evolution can be regarded as well as an economic process as the creation of man and nature through God. From the beginning of economic sciences in the late 19th century on more and more activities were interpreted in terms of economic language such as politics and wars, criminality, love and marriage, health, nature, family, religion and science itself. While different political end economical approaches give different definitions of economy, economy can not be defined in an exact way without referring to value systems and approaches to life. This article will nevertheless try to give an overview on human activities being assigned to economy from mammoth hunting to internet surfing.--Jörg Sutter 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Jörg, but economy is a set of facts, and science has to start with facts. How production evolved and how it met needs (not only physical needs, as services are now the main economic "products") is crucial. That evolution was due to a succession of practical innovations, that were more or less socially accepted (here we find the "values" you presented above). Economic theories were not what caused those evolutions, but, in my opinion, were attempts to find

  • technical methods to optimize them (tricks that would avoid stagnation, inflation, cycles or whatever...)
  • political adaptations to orientate them according to various visions (or, again, values) of society

In other words, in my opinion, economy feeds on technical and human evolutions, and economics tries to propose, and sometimes impose, possible directions, with results that might prove "on the field" if the theory was relevant or not. The economy, again, is made of facts. So the first thing, again in my opinion, is to identify them, without giving too much interpretations, which are more in the field of economics (and politics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, ethics or whatever other human appraoches). For example, I'm a fan of behavioral economics, but I keep it as a set of explanations of various economic phenomena, not as a tool of description. A market bubble / crash can be (more or less) objectively described, but what causes it, a mix of factors usually, is interpretation. --Pgreenfinch 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that discussion with you and will send it to some economists. I think, it should be published. And it's an amazing base of dialogical knowledge.--Jörg Sutter 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has erased the weblinks, which is not the best idea. I will try to check them and offer new weblinks, because I think weblinks offer the opportunity to move deeper into the subject. --Jörg Sutter 07:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)i love you

[edit] New Section WAR & Economy

Is Humanity developing or declining because of WAR?

War is an economical process in which high technology products are produced without the need of a market for them as they are produced to be destroyed. The best aspect of the process is that such production is financed by funds of the People, that considers themselves benefited by the process, and therefore accepts it without reservations.

Besides, the process develops technologies might can be later sold with good profits to the same society that financed their development.

Therefore, battle activities are a promoter of the development of Humanity and their Global Technical Enterprises.

Are their benefits larger than their destructive aspects? Or is Humanity in a process of diminishing welfare?

Dagoflores--MEXICO - AGS .--189.166.31.247 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Correction

"Especially in England the ideas of Adam Smith became reality while the economization—the process of always diminishing the efforts of production—led to mass poverty, starvation, urbanization and pauperization of the population"

This sentence needs a citation or should be eliminated. I have a basic undergraduate level understanding of economics and this idea makes absolutely zero sense to me. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Today, we live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Canada" What is the meaning of this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.70.125 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)