Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposal to remove drop-down menu in "The economy" box at bottom

Currently there is box at the bottom of the Econ sidebar with this content:

The economy: concept & history [show]

There is overlap is visual of "history" and "[show]" making both more difficult to read. In the course of trying to fix that, I came to conclude that something more basic needs to be fixed. I believe that if the points below had been raised earlier (discussed at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 1#random design #4), the same result might have been reached as proposed below.

It is here proposed to remove the drop-down menu (linked to from "[show]" in "The economy" box. Arguments in favor of it include these:

1. The drop-down menu largely duplicates a similar portion from the much more extensive sidebar at Economic systems higher in the Econ sidebar. Without a good reason for such redundancy, why should it remain?
2. There would be a gain in simplicity of that box, making a link to the remaing Economy link more likely. That link is more fundamental to begin with. It is the empirical raw material on which the study of economics depends. A significant fraction might think that there is no link except the drop-down menu if they are nudged by "[show]" to select it first.
3. Anyone who wishes to could copy content in the drop-down that might otherwise be lost into the Economic systems sidebar or at the "See also" section there.
4. There would no longer be the blurry overlap of "history" and "[show]."

Comments welcome. I would propose acting on the proposal in a week if a consensus permits it. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk)

I find the [show] buttons to be unhelpful in most situations. Only footer navboxes in groups of 3 or more, really need them. I happily endorse unhiding all the hidden sections.

Moving content about so that it is not duplicated is also a good idea. Sidebar navboxes should be complementary, not competitive. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done as to what was proposed on the above.

Thank you for your quick response, Quiddity,

I have reprodoued below what was remonved to eliminate the "[show]" link. Within a couple of days after the above post, the "[show]" link disappeared on its own. Presumably, however, it could reappear at any time. To prevent the latter, I removed the hidden text and code comprising the drop-down menu from the Econ. sidebar. I have reproduced it below. Anyone who wishes to can transfer all or part of it to anoth article, such as noted at (3) at above. Indeed, there is sidebar at Economic systems that already includes most of the items listed below.

– Anglo-Saxon · Feudalism
– International · Hunter-gatherer
– Newly industrialized country
– Palace · Plantation
– Post-capitalism · Post-industrial
– Social market · Socialist market
– Token · Traditional
– Information · Transition

I agree with Quiddity that there is an argument for also removing the drop-down menu elsewhere. in particular, at the 3rd line from the bottom ("Economic ideologies"). They do not deliver what is suggested by the "Economic ideologies" heading. For that reason. I am going to remove that drop-down mene as well in a week, unless someone objects. In the latter case, discussion can continue in a new section. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)(UTC) [Reproduced from 1st Edit of following subsection.]

[I added the subsection heading below to preserve transparency as to the different proposals discussed. They involve somewhat different considerations, which the headings should reflect for each respective proposal. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]

[Break]

Proposal to remove drop-down menu in "Economic ideologies" box

I agree with Quiddity's [1st] Edit above that there is an argument for also removing the drop-down menu elsewhere. in particular, at the 3rd line from the bottom ("Economic ideologies"). They do not deliver what is suggested by the "Economic ideologies" heading. For that reason. I am going to remove that drop-down men[u] as well in a week, unless someone objects. In the latter case, discussion can continue in a new section [which subsection above does after the fact]. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (Bolding and bracketed note above added by Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) .)

Per the preceding paragraph, the drop-down menu for "Economic idelogies, at the bottom of the sidebar was removed. It is reproduced below for anyone who would wish to use it in the Economic ideology article, despite the caveat that these links are about economic systems, not economic ideologies as such.

Anarchism · Capitalism
Communism · Corporatism
Fascism · Georgism
Islamic · Laissez-faire
Market socialism · Mercantilism
Protectionism · Socialism
Syndicalism · Third Way
--Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2009. (UTC)

I liked the economic ideologies and found it useful. :-( Morphh ^(talk) 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Morphh. Well, I'm at least glad that I did list the proposal for removing the drop-down menu for "Economnic ideologies" last week (mentioned in the Edit summaries for the article and Talk page then also). As noted above, many of the associated links at the bottom of my previous edit are about the respective economic systems (capitalism, socialism, etc.) and so duplicate the link earlier in the sidebar of Economic systems. Still, I think that the above makes a good case for exporting the above group of links (or subset thereof) to a sidebar in Economic ideology (or in its "See also" sectlon) and to any other article where it seems to fit. After all, if it is good enough for a drop-down menu, it should be good enough for a sidebar, which would make the drop-down menu more redundant. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (Minor edit for clarity. Bolding added per following Edit. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

I also liked the economic ideologies and found it useful. With it gone that information is not so easy to get at. Better to have those information connectors in the side bar, in the drop down. Easy and better presentation that way... and includes more general and good information that way. The sidebar is poorer without it. skip sievert (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The other template, Template:Economic systems sidebar, seems to list most (all?) of the removed content. I'd suggest that simply adding that 2nd template, wherever warranted, would be more helpful than having the same links in a hidden section in this template, where many readers simply aren't going to find them.

If even more detail is needed, we have overview articles/lists, such as Outline of economics (which needs more editors watchlisting and improving it :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like placing two sidebar templates on an article. It messes up the formatting of the article itself when the templates become too long, which it would if we had two. I thought part of the reason for creating a global common template was to do away with these other mini-templates and provide a common look and navigation to economic articles. Show / Hide is very common on templates, some are completely show/hide. I certainly think readers are more likely to find it there, then trying to navigate around overview pages looking for it. I'm going to restore the material until a greater consensus is reached. Morphh ^(talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to restore that area to me. Wasn't there a few more things in the drop down before, now removed? Seems like there was... it also is probably a good area not to remove this area in the future, but a really good place to expand in the future. More information would be nice in there, as to more articles of connected interest... and maybe more obscure, but still pertinent ones. skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a subsection heading above to reflect the proposal being discussed in this subsection. (A new subsection was suggested last week if the present proposal was questioned, to maintain transparency & avoid such unnecessary complications.) May I request that anyone discussing the proposal in the preceding section do so there?

I have taken Morphh's points above very seriously and tried to address them constructively. I have also followed up on Quiddity'a point above on the Template:Economic systems sidebar. Not a single link from the the group above is missing from that sidebar. (Similarly for the preceding section, every link except International political economy was on that same template.) The most obvious explanation for the overlap is that both drew from that template. With such overlap, there is a strong case for including the "Ideological systems" portion of the Template:Economic systems sidebar in the "Economic ideology" article, which I have done here, relabelling it as "Economic ideologies." I believe that that Edit is a principled compromise as to M's concern about the uses of a drop-down. The reader sees what s/he's expecting in linking to "Economic ideologies": a template/box with the same content as the drop-donn menu + the rest of the "Economic ideology” lead as context.

I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of 2 long sidebars in an article. Still, 5 out of the other 14 links (bssides "Economic ideoloogy" at the top of this section have more have more than one sidebar. Moreover, the current Economic ideologies template at "Economic ideoloogy" is only a third the length of the Economic systems template, and so less obtrusive, going to M's point.

To rephrase a point from the previous section, the Econ sidebar without the [SHOW/HIDE] for "Economic ideologies" is simpler and less distracting in what is already a large sidebar. Many people who would use the drop-down menu might not otherwise know that there is also a link to Economic ideology, which has not only the drop-down menu links but rest of the article Lead, which provideds context. WYSIWYG is predominant for the Econ sidebar, so mixing modes as to drop-down menus might be esp. confusing.

One other point. At least on my monitor, a lot of the time, [SHOW/HIDE] is not visible (the cure for which has eluded me -- WP:PURGE has not worked). Maybe it's true for lots of others as well. That is a subsidiary reason for working around [SHOW/HIDE], Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the previous things in the drop down box be returned to that area, and maybe more things included also? skip sievert (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The above question may refer to the subject of the preceding section. If it refers to the subject of this section, IMO the answers are "no" and "no" for the reasons stated above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How is removing information that leads to more information as to the subject good or called for? Please return the old information that was there also. skip sievert (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If the Economic ideology article (and the use of both templates) is the suggested formatting, I would not support it. I don't think it has a pleasing appearance and contrasts with the other sidebar. The sidebar is not a "See also" section - it is not intended to duplicate the links in the article. IMO, we should avoid mini-sidebars like that. The sidebar should cover the key areas of the particular higher level category (Economics in this case). It should do so in a way that is not overly long, appealing, and provides as much information to the relevant fields as possible. It can then be placed on many of the economic articles providing an common look and reasonable navigation in the field. We haven't reduce the size of the template with these changes and I don't think we're giving them undue weight in the field of economics. I don't see that removing the show/hide sublinks ads anything, and removes links to relevant topics. This type formatting is widely used throughout Wikipedia and is supported by all major browsers (at least 99% of the market). Morphh ^(talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That being the case above by Morph... and it appears to be accurate and with a good overview of thought, then a return of the show hide sublinks including the old information and addition perhaps of new information, when or if that is in order, seems in order. skip sievert (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If ss wishes to make a case on something in the preceding section, that's the place to do it.

This is not a biggie no matter what, but maybe some good will come from the discussion and outcome. Let me use numbering for ease of reference.

1T. I agree with M that The sidebar is not a "See also" section - it is not intended to duplicate the links in the article. The Economic ideologies sidebar at Economic ideology does not duplicate the links in the article nor the "See also" section there. Rather in providing examples in the Lead, per WP:LEAD it may "creat[e] interest in reading more of the article." Forgive my repeating, but anyone who who linked there the Ecnn sidebar via "Ecnomomic ideologies" would get what s/he linked to, not elsewhere in the Lead. The presumption should be that if the article can reasonably include something, show/find is an unnecessary distraction,

2T. As to [the] appearance of the EI template, it's very similar to the corresponding section of the Economic systems sidebar. I'm almost embarrassed to ask, but it's not clear to me what's displeasing about it. Yes, it's different from the Econ sidebar. That's one way of distinguishing rhwm, which can be a good thing.

3Ta. The EI template serves at a "parent" to the respective links on its sidebar just as Econ. is parent article for its sidebar.

3Tb. Arguably, EI can be both a legitmate parent and legitmate child as noted above for almost half of the EI template links.

4T. Removing the show/hide sublinks IMO adds elegant simplicity to the Econ. sidebar w no content loss at the EI article vis-á-vis show/hide, given the template there. It is "one-stop" linking.

5T. First, let me say, I use a very mainstream browser. How common is the show/tell not functioning? For me it coincides w those periods when all the symbol groups appear in the Edit mode at once. Conversely, when I can toggle among to symbol gruups in Edit mode, show/hide works. I suspect ttat that many users have non-toggle functionality, maybe for prolonged periods, making show/hide useless. And when it is working, users may be unnessarily be diverted from the EI link.

6T. What would the hypothetical rational reader prefer? Possibly, the most information in the smallest number of steps consistent w the title of the link and least distracion. On that, arguably the EI template delivers, making the show/hide unnecessary. Arguably most readers would not be put off by a short template plus a longer one, if both have a point. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to understand what you are talking about here :3Tb. Arguably, EI can be both a legitmate parent and legitmate child as noted above for almost half of the EI template links.... at least I do not follow what you are talking about. The show/hide does a good job, of what it is supposed to do... provide more information for interested parties.

The drop down works fine in my browser. Shouldn't these things be added back in also ??? – Anglo-Saxon · Feudalism

– International · Hunter-gatherer – Newly industrialized country – Palace · Plantation – Post-capitalism · Post-industrial – Social market · Socialist market – Token · Traditional – Information · Transition

The basic bar is used on a lot of articles... and how is it a good idea to remove information, that is pertinent and some of it notable or at least fairly well known? skip sievert (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that most potential readers of this section would see the above remarks by ss as at best:

— a pattern of disruptions as to the subject of this section (indicated by the heading)

— interjections of material properly belonging to the preceding section, which is correctly titled,§ despite repeated contrary requests.

The template above was tailored to the circumstances of the EI article, as discussed in my preceding Edit, which I believe stands up well.

§ That is, Proposal to remove drop-down menu in 'The economy' box at bottom. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I only see it as two different discussions as you split it into two different discussions. It's the same topic point, just a difference on the content included. I don't think we're really discussing the weight, notability or importance of the articles included in a sidebar. It's a discussion on removing content within a show/hide context and replacing it with a new sidebar template. It would seem odd to me to debate the same thing in two different sections, so I don't see Skip's comments as disruptive. We should just rename it all to "Proposal to remove drop-down menus" since both are in dispute, which should reduce any reader confusion. Morphh ^(talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This and the preceding section have different headings, reflecting different proposals and details pertaining to each. Details, not only similarities, matter. The differences remain, whether or not they are denied. What is striking is the repeated failure of anyone to show up at the top section pertaining to the other proposal, where the details can be conveniently viewed in context. Instead a WP-version of guerilla war for that proposal is waged in this section, interrupting discussion of the proposal in this section.

1T-6T above raise still unanswered points in favor of the proposal under consideration here, despite all the above disruptions. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove drop-down menus

I think the proposal is not a good idea, and all the former information could be returned also. The economics sidebar is a general thing that is on many disparate articles... and contains lots of article information. The ideology section was better before when it had more information rather than less. It was an easy way to get to some of the more obscure articles that are articles never the less and contain good information. Since the main economics side bar is used so much, having it contain more related information seems like a good idea, especially when more information does not take up more overt space which it does not. Interested parties can click on the feature, others can ignore it. skip sievert (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the above Edit, including the title:

1. It misleads in representing the 2 proposals and corresponding sections above as one proposal.
2. It breaks the thread of both those sections, making it convenient to avoid confronting the arguments in each section and thereby detracting from any semblance of orderly discussion.
3. It is written in an obscurantist (ambiguous) literary style, making determinate meaning beside the point as to engaging in productive discussion.
4. Insofar as there is any determinate meaning there, it has been addressed earlier, though doubtless more could be said for anyone showing up in one or both sections above to discuss the respective proposals. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

New colors of World map showing per capita GDP

I'm not sure I like the new colors of the world map showing per capita GDP that has been uploaded by User:Sbw01f (the original creator). Does anyone else prefer the old colors? Want to change it back by making a smaller map with the old colors and redirecting to that smaller map? LK (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like the old colors for the smaller image, as the differences are more easily seen. I think the detail of the new image is better at a larger view where the changes can be seen. Perhaps we could ask Sbw01f if he would take his new image and use the more distinct colors. Morphh ^(talk) 15:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing the map to another one (also made by User:Sbw01f) based on PPP adjusted GDP, rather than nominal GDP, as i) it more accurately reflects economic well-being, and ii) the colors show up more clearly on the thumbnail. LK (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Education economics, Welfare, & Population economics as added fields in Econ sidebar

The following 3 fields were added after Health economics to the Econ sidebar for total of 1 added line: Education economics, Welfare, & (before Labour economics), Population economics.

Health, Education, and Welfare in the sidebar are the same triad as at JEL classification codes#Health, education, and welfare JEL: I Subcategories. Population and Labor are the same duo as at JEL classification codes#Labor and demographic economics JEL: J Subcategories.

A word of explanation may be appropriate as to inclusion of Welfare on the line after Welfare economics. The terms 'welfare' and 'welfare economics' both have "welfare" in them, but in the JEL classification codes, they have different usages with 'welfare' found at JEL: I and 'welfare economics' found at JEL: D6. So the 2 listings are not redundant. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Placement of "Techniques" section

I propose to move the "Techniques" section from the end of the Econ sidebar back up to the follow the "General categories" section.

A contrary argument can be made that it is reasonable to transition from "General categories" directly to "Fields and subfields" without interrupting that flow with the insertion of "Techniques."

I believe that countervailing considerations make placement of "Techniques" to follow the subjects under "General categories" appropriate. In particular:

• The "Techniques" referenced represent or examine the relationships or data found in Micro & Macro. Micro & Macro are at the empirical heart of Econ as a subject. Placing "Techniques" closer to Micro & Macro makes that connection more evident than placing them after "Fields and subfields." Those same techniques may also be used across "Fields and subfields." So, placing "Techniques" before "Fields and subfields" is appropriate on that count as well.
• The "Techniques" are a particular a kind of method, that is, a technical method. Their placement immediately following Economic methodology is appropriate because of the kinship of methodology — the study of 'method(s)' — and of 'methods' (of a particular kind).
• All the "Techniques" are found in JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, which follows JEL classification codes#History of economic thought, methodology, and heterodox approaches JEL: B Subcategories. So, the proposed sequence in the Econ sidebar would follow the same (arguably reasonable) sequence as in the JEL classification codes. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Move of "Techniques" section completed per above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Methods, not techniques

The (former) header "techniques" (sic.) referenced the JEL category of "Mathematical and quantitative methods" (not "techniques"), so I replaced the incorrect "techniques" with the correct "methods". Thanks! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Praxeology listed in techniques?

I suggest adding Praxeology under techniques. It's a bit more arcane than experimental economics, but it has just as much history behind it. Darsox64 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Praxeology is a cool term all right but not in common usage outside of Austrian economics. No reason not use the term where warranted of course, but it would be misleading in a sidebar for Economics, given its non-mainstream usage within economics. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Expanding "Economic ideologies" to its own section?

I believe that this section should be expanded and not in a collapsed state. For continuity it should also be in the same font size as the rest. Agree, disagree?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Many readers are entirely unfamiliar with our "show/hide" system, and I'm not sure why it would be in a smaller size.

Also, the "Economies by region" at the top should be expanded. (And could probably be condensed into 2 lines, instead of 3 lines. However, I could understand this section remaining at a smaller font size, as it is acting somewhat as a caption for the map-image above it).

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt at more explicitness, I hope that there would be no objection to an alternate heading above of "Expanding 'Economic ideologies' to to its own section?" from "Collapsed 'Economic ideologies' section?" (The latter title was at wide variance from what I expected this section to be about.)

I respectfully disagree on proposal above to expand "Economic ideologies" to its own section from its current "show or drop-down" menu for the "Economic ideologies" line in the Econ sidebar. For ease of reference, let me label and state the following variant arguments against the above proposal.

1T. Economics as a social science is conventionally and usefully distinguished from even economic ideology. The relation of economics to ideology is an interesting subject. But wouldn't it be a retrogression to create an "Economic ideologies" section on equal footing with the "Fields and subfields" section?

2T. 'Economic ideologies' finds no place in JEL classification codes, widely used for classifying professional articles and books. If it is not useful there, why use it as a standard for its own section in the Econ sidebar?

3T. Aside from the above, the drop-down menu mixes together economic systems and approaches to economics as a subject (for example heterodox approaches). The Econ sidebar already has links to articles on economic systems and heterodox economics. Now, more than subject can be treated, but why mix them indiscriminately and give that mixture such prominence in the sidebar? Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned about the [show/hide] code. If the problem can be more helpfully solved by simply removing the content (or moving it to another template) then that works for me. [show/hide] should be used as little as possible. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that [show/hide] menus should be used sparingly, especially with serious overlap or worse. Still, this heading is about a different question. As a practical matter, considering more than one proposal on related subjects in the same section might be hard to achieve. (It would be different if all interested parties were together in a room trying consider more than one proposal, with amendments etc.) Perhaps allowing a week from the top Edit would be sufficient time for examination of the proposal above. I do have another concern about a recent Edit, which I would like to raise in the next few days. After that, revisiting particular [show/tell] menus on this sidebar might be more feasible, though though more than one topic could be pursued simultaneously in different sections. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Listing of "Marxian economics" in Econ sidebar?

The recent add of Marxian economics (ME) to the Econ sidebar was accompanied by this somewhat non-transparent Edit summary: "+ to list." The add is about halfway down the "Fields and subfields" section after Labour economics. I am doubtful that a compelling case can be made for including it in the sidebar. Let me label the following for ease of reference as arguments against the addition of ME to the Econ sidebar.

1A. Simply put, ME is unnecessary in the sidebar. It is not among the 19 top-tier of JEL classification codes from JEL: A to JEL: Z, unlike most of the other links. (For the exceptions, I believe that a reasonable case can be made for each of them.) That's an argument against any presumption in its favor. The burden of proof would then seem to rest on the add in making the case for inclusion beyond those in the top-tier codes. In a number of top-tier JEL codes, ME is related has or something to say related to them, for example, heterodox approaches, Marxian macroeconomic models, economic systems, economic history, etc. If ME is so related, that's not in itself a good reason for including ME in the sidebar because of redundancy, in that the top-tier codes already include that dimension of ME within them.

2A. In a related vein, ME is out of place in "Fields and subfields" as the only "school of economics" in that section. Should the sidebar then open up to other schools of economics, perhaps under its own heading to distinguish it from "Fields and subfields"? I don't believe so for a general-purpose Econ sidebar. The trend in econ been away from such "schools" for close to a century, though there remain vigorous debates in some subjects (such as macroeconomics). Rather, the presence of ME in the Econ sidebar arguably unbalances and in that respect mis-represents the subject of economics.

3A. Singling out ME in effect deflates other heterodox approaches. If the intent is to draw attention to the multiplicity of heterodox approaches, that might be better achieved in the simplicity of "Heterodox approaches" under "General categories," rather than singling out some approaches or one but not others in the sidebar. The sidebar might be to used better to plug big holes in econ fields, not to diminish those approaches not listed.

4A. The above is not about the historical importance of Marx. There is I think little disagreement that Marx was a very important person in history. There might be some, if less, agreement among economists about the importance of Marx in the history of economic thought as a whole, and as a challenge or inspiration to mainstream economics considered as generally-accepted fields and methods in economics. The above addresses the much narrower question as to the appropriateness of ME in this general-purpose Econ sidebar. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Public Finance Microeconomics?

Under Microeconomics, Public Finance is shown as one part of Microeconomics. I agree with the fact that Political Economy is kinda micro, but I think Public Finance is more closer to macro with all the tools used in it (Ramsey Problem, Optimal Fiscal Policy,...etc) than micro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.251.108 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Heterodox economics

I propose removing Heterodox economics from the top section, because it is discussed in the Economic methodology article. The article's title is certainly point-of-view, in asserting an economic orthodoxy, and it has no place here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In the JEL classification codes, JEL: B comprises the triad of History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches, just as the Economics sidebar template does. An argument for keeping Heterodox Approaches in the template is to accurately reflect the integrity of JEL: B, one of the 19 main JEL categories, irrespective of the inclusion of Economic methodology in the sidebar. (Earlier discussion of sidebar inclusion of HE is at Template talk:Economics sidebar/Archive 1#Heterodox Economics.) --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

New Palgrave: Classification

Reference has been made to the New Palgrave's classification system.

Let me clarify that this system was used only by the old NP, and was abandoned. In fact, the on-line edition does not return anything when I asked for "techniques", which Thomas Meeks has been championing to replace "Mathematical and quantitative methods". (I moved the old, and apparently defective, system to the talk page, with a request for one secondary source establishing notability.)

The present NP uses the JEL classification codes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "Mathematical & quantitative methods" section with "Econometrics" section

"Math. ... methods" vs. "Econometrics"

A proposal for a section of the sidebar (which was implemented boldly).

I see little or no progress on the discussion of the methods section, and nobody has joined the discussion in months. Thus, it may be worth trying a fresh start. I'll make the following suggestion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 04:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DRAFT:

Econometrics: mathematical - Statistical - Computational
Simultaneous equations - Cross sections - Panels - Time series
Economic data - National accounts - Experiments

Game theory - Optimization - Operations research

PROPOSAL

Econometrics
Mathematical economics · Statistics
Cross section & Panel Data
Simultaneous equations  · Time series
Computational · Experimental
National accounts

This edit was bold, but not obviously foolhardy. Neither Thomas or myself were happy with the status quo, and had difficulty resolving differences, despite a lot of discussion. It is of course perfectly fine to revert my edit, and pursue discussion of the proposal here first. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please consider also a sparse menu:

Econometrics
Mathematical economics · Statistics
Computational · Experimental
National accounts

Again, I would favor moving National accounts off the template or moving it closer to growth or macroeconomics. I would favor moving game theory up to the methods section, following the JEL (and reality!). However, striving for consensus seems worth some sacrifices.

Also, experimental and computational economics are much less important than the master articles of math. econ. and econ. statistics, so they could also be removed.

Here is a minimal menu:

Econometrics
Mathematical economics · Economic statistics

The minimal menu is at least canonical, reflecting the Econometric Society's statement of purpose. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Above is the restoration of the heading Edit FROM: Suggestion for the methods section [followed by others] TO: Proposal to replace "Mathematical & quantitative methods" section with "Econometrics" section (for more specificity & with KW's indulgence). On the proposal itself, more later. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC), 13 March 2011

1T. Of course WP:Bold also advises caution. 3 days before KW’s Proposal to replace "Mathematical & quantitative methods" section with "Econometrics" section (on March 4), reasons against it were offered at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (E) "Mathematical and quantitative methods":

10T. 'Econometrics' or 'Econometric methods' or 'Mathematical & econometric methods' or 'Econometric & mathematical methods' as the template heading is farther from both the JEL 'Mathematical & quantitative methods' term and The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics Subject Index-related 'Technical methods', which have other categories besides "Mathematical" & "Econometric" methods. "Econometric methods" is not a super-category of Math econ or Math methods in econ. according the JEL sub-categories and the New Palgrave. Similarly (as per 8T), econometric methods is an input of experimental economics, not a super-category of it. "Quantitative methods" describes experimental economics and national accounting in a way that "Math methods" and/or "Econometric methods" as inputs (at most) does not. So, the alleged magisterium of the Econometric Society, etc. are irrelevant to this Econ template heading.

2T. As it stands, the Econometrics section of the template is arguably against non-WP:NPOV in seemingly making math econ, experimental economics, and national accounting subcategories of econometrics, contrary to JEL and New Palgrave.

3T. Now (E) itself was offered by KW as a compromise over (A). Moving farther from a compromise does not sound like an improvement without good reasons for it (such as I attempted for (A)). (E) as a compromise not making everybody happy (per KW above) is hardly an argument for saying that Econometrics is an improvement over (E). At least a move back to (E) would get discussion back on track. –Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas, as I have explained multiple times, the revision was in keeping with the Econometric Society's statement of scope. Outside readers should note that the JEL system is used by the current New Palgrave, which has abandoned the "classification confusion" of the old New Palgrave, which ThomasMeeks continue to promote without warning its extinction. I have restored the main subcategories of the JEL, including economic statistics, game theory, and optimization. Please get another opinion at the Economics Project before reverting.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored JEL classification

Even the new New Palgrave abandoned its weird 1987 classification for the JEL system (which seems to be nearly monopoly on economics classification). I restored the JEL classifications to the C category, bumping National accounts JEL E01 below where it belongs.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hulbert88, 6 April 2011

I think that the subfield of Complexity Economics is established nowadays to a level that makes it deserving the inclusion in the Economics sidebar.

Hulbert88 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article on complexity economics is terrible junk. I couldn't read below the nonsense that traditional economics is based on linear models.

The Journal of Complexity has had many economists in the past on its editorial board, and there is a lot of good work on complexity and economics. However, I would be skeptical that "complexity economics" is comparable to the listed fields, in terms of breadth, depth, quality, etc., even if a good article were available on WP. Please look at the JEL and report on the size of complexity versus game theory, for example.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I deal with game theoretical articles every day, and they are more a system of internal coherent logic rather than a true modelling of reality. JEL classification is certaintly useful, but it is by no means the only source for classification of economic studies. Furthermore, neoclassical economics, and game theory as well, is based upon mathematical techniques which would not be considererd very good in modelling any non-laboratory physical environment, let alone complex social phenomena. I personally think "complexity" economics does deserve its place in the sidebar, and then it is upon the reader to decide whether it is worth to keep on reading on such matters. I agree that the article is not an excellent piece of scholardship and it is certaintly improvable, but "a priori" censorship goes against what this knowledge exchange platform is for. Hulbert88 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hulbert, thanks for replying partially, which is a start towards addressing the WP policy questions of due weight and most reliable sources. There must be some thresh-hold for inclusion, otherwise the template would be bloated with every article on the economics project.

Neither your opinion nor mine is relevant. You must address the concern that the template reflect due weight in the most reliable sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Methods" section revision

A recent Edit of the "Methods" section of the Econ sidebar included the following:

• changing the name of the section heading from "Techniques" [the heading since 8 November 2008] to "Methods"
• adding Optimization (mathematics) & Statistics
• dropping National accounting
• changing the sequential order to alphabetical from analytical
• moving Game theory up to this section from the "Fields and subfields" section.

It is reproduced and labelled (B) on the far right.

A case can be made for each of these, but I'd like to propose what I believe is a stronger case for (A) on the near right:

1. changing the heading to "Technical methods"

2. dropping the last 4 changes above.

(1) and (2) results in (A) on the near right. Arguments in favor of (A) include these.

1T. (A) is narrower and more balanced as to unused white space in different sections.

2T. (B) includes the Statistics and Optimization (mathematics), neither of them an economics article, unlike all the other articles in the sidebar. The earnest reader linking to those articles from the Econ sidebar could reasonably ask, "What does this have to do with economics?" and not get much of an answer.

3T. Recent edits of Econometrics and Mathematical economics include the (2T) links, giving the (2T) subjects a context per WP:LEAD, further lessening the need for the (2T) links in the template.

4T. What is important from statistics in economics is already a part of econometrics, as textbook links in Econometrics#References in the early chapters (or appendices in some advanced textbooks) make clear.

5T. "Technical methods" is a more brief term than "Mathematical and quantitative methods," the template-heading link to JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories. "Technical methods" is attested by the 1987 The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics Subject-Index classification term of "Techniques," which includes similar terms to the above JEL category link. "Methods" would invite mixing "technical" & "non-technical" methods (say Austrian economics or transaction cost methods), negating a useful analytical distinction "technical"/"non-technical", or unnecessarily invite the question "Why are all the articles in this section so technical?"

6T. National accounting is important (as the GDP-colored map in the sidebar suggests) and is included in the "Methods" link (that is, (B) Methods).

7T. The sequential order of (A) has the advantage of reflecting that Mathematical economics, which historically preceded Econometrics, joined math & econ. Econometrics adds stat to the math-econ union. Hence the ME-Metrics order on the 1st line. Experimental econ makes heavy use of econometrics (so reasonably follows it) & is micro-oriented. National accounting is macro oriented. That gives a micro-macro balance in the 2nd line, the same ordering as in the top section.

8T. The placement of Game theory in (A) is after Information economics in the sidebar, correctly suggesting that there is link between the 2 (as from games with Game theory#Perfect information and imperfect information) and before Industrial organization (where it is most frequently connected in principles of economics textbooks), lending it concreteness and context to placement. JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories placement [of "Game theory"] is here I believe less relevant than the WP:LEAD standard as to context. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics subject classification places Industrial organization and Game theory under the more general category of Economic organization, which agrees with the placement in (A) [in going from the general to the concrete]. [21:00, 3 December 2010] [--12:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)]

A little bit more on "Game theory" placement in (A) between "Information economics" and "Industrial organization":

• Lippman and McCall (2001}, "Information, Economics of," International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences uses about 50 percent of the Abstract to argue for the illuminating power in the formal link of information economics to game theory and its informal (that is, obvious, practical) link to industrial organization.

• As to Industrial organization, non-cooperative game theory has become the standard unifying method of analysis of firm strategic interactions in according to Jean Tirole in his (much-cited) The Theory of Industrial Organization (1988), p. 3. That is now so noted at the end of the Lead for the IO article. Part II, Strategic Interaction makes up more than half the book.

These 2 sources provide further analytical support for placement of "Game theory" in sidebar (A) above for WP:LEAD context. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to allow a week for comments (if any) before making the above Edit to (A). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor Thomasmeeks rightly notes that my revisions broadly followed the JEL classification, both in terminology for the category (methods versus techniques) and in the inclusion of the major subdivisions, especially statistics and (statistical) econometrics (which JEL lists in two clusters, for time-series statistics and simultaneous equation models). JEL does not list "national accounting" as a method, nor does any alternative classification.

The mathematical methods — mathematics, game theory, optimization, statistics — are not economic methods, but are mathematical methods that are used in economics, as they are used in other special sciences. From Samuelson to Varian, many economists have nearly defined economic theory as the application of optimization theory to allocation problems: leading economists and the JEL trump WP traditions, insofar as WP inspires to reflect the most reliable sources. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I trust that no one will mistake vigorous discussion to sort through things for anything other than that. Let me continue to number for ease of reference in the order of points raised above.

9T. The most "general" categories in JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories are:

JEL: C0 - General

JEL: C00 - General

JEL: C01 - Econometrics

JEL: C02 - Mathematical Methods

There is no mention of Statistics there. That is consistent with (3T & 4T) above.

10T. All mentions of "Statistical" in same JEL link above are paired with Econometric Methods or a subcategory of Econometric (and Statistical) Methods, consistent with (4T). Econometric and Statistical Methods are so paired is consistent with Econometrics incorporating statistical methods. per (4T). (That is, textbook econometrics and the JEL are not too proud to acknowledge a statistical-methods foundation of econometrics.)

11T. In JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, JEL: C82 - "Methodology for collecting, estimating, and organizing macroeconomic data" corresponds to National accounting, though its exact wording is different. I don't believe that a semantic difference applied to the same category can bear much weight.

12T. The disputed Econ sidebar link implied by the (A) sidebar above is not "Economics as (constrained) optimization" (allocating scarce resource to unlimited wants) but Optimization (mathematics). So, the relevance of the latter, rather than the former in this section, is at issue. And that's the relevance of parsimonious and well-placed links for the general reader and WP:LEAD guidelines per (2T, 3T, & 4T) and (8T). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the JEL lists "Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" first, listing statistical methods that are not restricted to econometrics, before listing the two areas of econometric statistics (time series and simultaneous equations, I noted previously).

JEL: C10 - General JEL: C11 - Bayesian analysis JEL: C12 - Hypothesis testing JEL: C13 - Estimation JEL: C14 - Semiparametric and nonparametric methods JEL: C15 - Statistical Simulation methods JEL: C16 - Statistical distributions JEL: C16 - Specific Distributions

JEL: C19 - Other

Second, few monitor templates. TM, would you please post a notice on the Wiki Project Economics, asking for third opinions. I posted an invitation for other comments on the talk page for the Wiki Project Economics. (09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

13T. Well, IMO I have already met the first point above at (4T). Consultation of the textbook [links] at Econometrics confirms the point.

14T. Per (9T), "JEL: C0 - General" comes before "JEL: C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" (with classification guidelines for each at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php) and on its face is more general in not qualifying "general" as a descriptive section of JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, unlike later groupings.

15T. This may be an ongoing discussion. Anyone may join it or post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics to that effect. On the latter, I am not so inclined now, but I'm not offended by the invitation.

On a personal note, I have tried to be guided by the principle of charity from philosophy in WP discussions to improve my understanding of a position with which I might disagree (initially at least), either to formulate my position better or to be persuaded by others. One reason for the length of this section might be that there are serious points that need(ed) to be worked through.

I cannot edit here for awhile, so no more huffing and puffing on this side (; ) till then. Have a good day, KW (and this page's "band of others" who are of course welcome to join the fun here). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Subsections

I am adding subsections to this discussion, to allow some of us to focus on a few key issues (amid many raised in TM's excellent & organized discussion). (I shall refactor some of the above discussions.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Technical methods" versus "Methods" heading (in this template)

"5T. (1) ["Technical methods"] is a more brief term [than] the link of "Mathematical and quantitative methods [JEL: C Subcategories]" and attested by the 1987 The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics] subject classification of "Techniques," which includes similar terms to the JEL category. "Methods" would invite mixing "technical" & "non-technical" methods (say Austrian economics or transaction cost methods), negating a useful analytical distinction ["technical"/"non-technical"], or unnecessarily invite the question "Why are all the articles in this section so technical?" (TM)

5.1T. Per the query below & maintenance of continuity for the above (but at the risk of belaboring the above), "technical" in "Technical methods" of sidebar (A) above at Template talk:Economics sidebar#"Methods" section revision serves as a shortened alternative to "Mathematical and quantitative." It has the same warrant as "Techniques" in the The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics Subject Index of "Techniques" at the end of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. The latter source includes (among others), the corresponding articles listed in sidebar A (that is, Mathematical economics, Econometrics, Experimental economics, and National accounting) & in the associated JEL: C Subcategories link above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

5.2T. I don't believe that 'technical' is "wrong" in 'technical methods' as a grammatical modifier of 'methods' (whether "technical" or not), any more than 'Techniques' is "wrong" in the Subject Index of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics per (5.1T) as a heading for corresponding articles there, which also appear under the "Technical methods" headings at sidebar (A) above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "technical". Perhaps you mean "formal" or "mathematical"?

The answer is that like other fields, economics is increasingly mathematical. Students of economics who wish to qualify for (serious) doctoral study must study at least multivariate calculus, linear algebra, calculus-based probability, calculus-based statistics, and preferably additional courses in statistical methods/econometrics and in mathematics. A first-year student in a serious Ph.D. program studies a year of microeconomics, macroeconomics, econometrics, and mathematics for economists (nonlinear optimization theory, elementary topology, convex sets, fixed-point theory, and the simplest models of variational calculus/control/dynamic programming); some programs allow a history of economics substitution. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the first line of the preceding comment, my response is indented above. Thanks.

P.P.S. I simultaneously posted another reply in the following subsection. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In that meaning, then "technical" is wrong. The phrase "mathematical and quantitative" is redundant, since mathematics includes qualitative phenomena (especially topology popular in economics, particurly fixed-point theory in combinatorial/algebraic topology and Morse theory in differential topology, but also partially ordered sets).

The (mis)definition of mathematics as the science of quantitative phenomena was, like dueling, widespread in Germany in the 1800s, when it was criticized as ignorant confusion by Charles Sanders Peirce. Pragmatically, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the preceding, I have responded at (5.2T) above to maintain continuity there. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Statistics/Optimization as "Methods" (in this template)

"2T. (B) includes the Statistics and Optimization (mathematics), neither of them an economics article, unlike all the other articles in the sidebar. The earnest reader linking to those articles from the Econ sidebar could reasonably ask, "What does this have to do with economics?" and not get much of an answer.

"3T. Recent edits of Econometrics and Mathematical economics include the (2T) links, giving the (2T) subjects a context per WP:LEAD, further lessening the need for the (2T) links in the template.

"4T. What is important from statistics in economics is already a part of econometrics, as textbook [links] in Econometrics#References in the early chapters (or appendices in some advanced textbooks) make clear." (TM)

Editor Thomasmeeks rightly notes that my revisions broadly followed the JEL classification, both in terminology for the category (methods versus techniques) and in the inclusion of the major subdivisions, especially statistics and (statistical) econometrics (which JEL lists in two clusters, for time-series statistics and simultaneous equation models). JEL does not list "national accounting" as a method, nor does any alternative classification.

The mathematical methods — mathematics, game theory, optimization, statistics — are not economic methods, but are mathematical methods that are used in economics, as they are used in other special sciences. From Samuelson to Varian, many economists have nearly defined economic theory as the application of optimization theory to allocation problems: leading economists and the JEL trump WP traditions, insofar as WP inspires to reflect the most reliable sources. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I trust that no one will mistake vigorous discussion to sort through things for anything other than that. Let me continue to number for ease of reference in the order of points raised above.

9T. The most "general" categories in JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories are:

JEL: C0 - General

JEL: C00 - General

JEL: C01 - Econometrics

JEL: C02 - Mathematical Methods

There is no mention of Statistics there. That is consistent with (3T & 4T) above.

10T. All mentions of "Statistical" in same JEL link above are paired with Econometric Methods or a subcategory of Econometric (and Statistical) Methods, consistent with (4T). Econometric and Statistical Methods are so paired is consistent with Econometrics incorporating statistical methods. per (4T). (That is, textbook econometrics and the JEL are not too proud to acknowledge a statistical-methods foundation of econometrics.)

11T. In JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, JEL: C82 - "Methodology for collecting, estimating, and organizing macroeconomic data" corresponds to National accounting, though its exact wording is different. I don't believe that a semantic difference applied to the same category can bear much weight.

12T. The disputed Econ sidebar link implied by the (A) sidebar above is not "Economics as (constrained) optimization" (allocating scarce resource to unlimited wants) but Optimization (mathematics). So, the relevance of the latter, rather than the former in this section, is at issue. And that's the relevance of parsimonious and well-placed links for the general reader and WP:LEAD guidelines per (2T, 3T, & 4T) and (8T). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the JEL lists "Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" first, listing statistical methods that are not restricted to econometrics, before listing the two areas of econometric statistics (time series and simultaneous equations, I noted previously).

JEL: C10 - General JEL: C11 - Bayesian analysis JEL: C12 - Hypothesis testing JEL: C13 - Estimation JEL: C14 - Semiparametric and nonparametric methods JEL: C15 - Statistical Simulation methods JEL: C16 - Statistical distributions JEL: C16 - Specific Distributions

JEL: C19 - Other (KW)

13T. Well, IMO I have already met the first point above at (4T). Consultation of the textbook links at Econometrics#References confirms the point.

14T. Per (9T), "JEL: C0 - General" comes before "JEL: C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" (with classification guidelines for each at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php) and on its face is more general in not qualifying "general" as a descriptive section of JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, unlike later groupings. (TM)

Wooldridge's undergraduate textbook is a counter-example to your claim, since Wooldridge explains statistical methods as appropriate for randomized experiments and (so-called) "econometric methods as appropriate for observational data" (shudder of horror). Another book you cite, by Pindyck and Rubinfield, exhibits the ecological regression fallacy in many, many chapters. Far from incorporating statistics, most econometric textbooks are incompetent and violate the main principles of the first 3 weeks of a course in statistics. Murray's book is much better (on statistics and economics), and I hope that it shall be reprinted: However, it wasn't listed.

TM may be right to suggest that microeconomics is increasing its concern for experimental design, following the embarrassments of Heckman-type analysis of observational data (PSID). However, macroeconomics is experimental, also: For discussions of experimentation and macroeconomics, see Wold's presidential address to the Econometric Society and see Morgenstern's essays. 13:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

15T. Let try to address the preceding. The relevant Wooldridge econometrics textbook discussion at p. 2 does not say that econometrics makes no use of statistics. Rather, he says there that "econometricians have borrowed from mathematical statisticians wherever possible," including the method of multiple regression, a mainstay for both groups. Wooldridge goes on to review and expand on those math stat methods in chapters 1-9 of the book. As to broad subjects, they might just as well have appeared in a math stat textbook. Nor does he say that econometricians don't use statistical methods for experimental purposes, for of course they do use such methods, including multiple regression. All of this is consistent with (9-10T) and (13-14T) above.

I knew that I would be in a bad mood if I looked at Wooldridge. Page 6: Wooldridge treats convenience samples as random samples. Page 13 (appropriately ill-fated numbering, numerologically), Wooldridge states (expressing wishful thinking volition or erroneous future tense) that "we will (sic.) eventually see that ... econometric methods can simulate a ceteris paribus experiment", which imho implies more than the possibility of monkeys typing Shakespeare, and strike me as not exemplifying the RSS/ISI code of ethics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

15.1T. As to the Econometrics#References book, Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld (P&R) (1976; 1998, 4th ed.), Econometric Methods and Economic Forecasts, McGraw-Hill, both authors are noted in econometrics.[1][2] Minimimizing (as distinct from lessening) the ecological inference problem is a relatively advanced subject.[3] It is an example of an aggregation problem in econometrics,[4] which P&S discuss in the more general context of model specification (such as choice of variables to include) and a way that potentially eliminates the problem, use of micro (non-aggregated) panel data over time. But, yes, in their numerical examples, P&S may have failed to warn readers of an ecological inference problem or what specifically could be done about it.

Not only do Pindyck and Rosenbeld fail to warn readers about ecological inference, but they commit the ecological inference fallacy many times, sometimes in examples from their published articles: I remember a fallacious regression of Michigan county politics and home-prices, if my memory is correct. It wouldn't be wrong to label such a regression only a heuristic, and then investigate whether it works or not, of course.

A fine treatment of ecological regression occurs in an early chapter in the Berkeley textbook Statistics (David Freedman and company), which I recommend. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

15.2T. As to the anti-most-introductory-econometrics-textbooks remarks above, I believe for the reasons noted above that such an opinion [or its opposite for that matter] should not have much weight as to inclusion of "Statistics" (or not) in the Econ sidebar, which is a focus of this section.

P.S. The reference to Herman Wold's presidential address to the Econometric Society above now appears in the Econometrics article with due credit there.

P.P.S. I simultaneously posted another reply in the previous subsection. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Wold is increasingly recognized by Judea Pearl and others, and deserves recognition by others. It was very nice of you to credit this discussion! 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)~

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

National accounting as methodology?

I propose removing national accounting from the methodology section. (Others may wish to remove it from this template entirely.) The template for economics ignores National accounting. National accounting is not a methodology for economics, any more than personal accounting, business accounting, public accounting, official statistics, etc., methodologies for economics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, National accounting has already been removed from the template (by KW [5]).

Perhaps KW meant to propose removal of national accounting in the template section currently titled "Mathematical & scientific methods" if it returns in the future --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

On other points:

• National accounting, long-standing in the template section until recently titled "Techniques," differs from personal accounting, business accounting, public accounting in that it it is heavily based on economic concepts, not just accounting concepts.
• National accounting is properly classified in the JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories and JEL classification codes#Macroeconomics and monetary economics JEL: E Subcategories sections, not under "Accounting". This was similarly noted above at subsection Template talk:Economics sidebar#Narrowed & broadened ranges of disagreement on "methods" part of this template at (18T).
• KW's heading link above at this writing is to the Economic methodology link, which is properly classified under a different JEL code JEL classification codes#History of economic thought, methodology, and heterodox approaches JEL: B Subcategories. So, the heading may mislead the diligent reader. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"National accounting" versus "National accounts" as template-link label

A recent template edit changed the long-standing template link from "National accounting" to "National accounts" (with the same target link for both). The Edit summary referred to "per WP:least surprise". I believe that the quoted explanation is a misreading of the relevant WP guideline. The relevant link is Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken whose 1st paragraph reads:

Where PLA represents Principle of Least Astonishment -->

We follow the "principle of least astonishment"—after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

The close wording of "National accounts" & "National accounting" alone should make it clear to most readers that they are in the right place. The first paragraph of National accounts explicitly notes the relation of the two terms.

An advantage of "National accounting" (over "National accounts") as the link term in the Econ template is this: It suggests an applied counterpart to (private or non-National) accounting as a method of analysis. "Accounting" in the context of the national accounts (that is, as a method of analysis paralleling private accounting) is used in: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2008, 2nd Edition:

"national income" Abstract.

"national accounting, history of" Abstract.

"generational accounting," Abstract and uncorrected proof.

"green national accounting," Abstract.

"growth accounting" by Francesco Caselli. Abstract.

"level accounting" Abstract.

The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 1987 "social accounting"

It should likewise be used in the Econ template, because 'National accounting' (as an Econ method) facilitates the practical implementation of National accounts for countries A, B, etc. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Placement of National accounting in "Methods" or "Fields & subfields" section of Template?

Obviously, national accounting is better placed next to macroeconomics growth, and development. Can you find one serious department that teaches national accounting as part of its core graduate sequences---usually micro, macro, math, and econometrics---or even as a methods course? In the world, a handful of statistics programs teach official statistics and include coursework on national accounting, but such topics are usually taught be employees of federal statistical agencies and forecasting firms.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

1T. Well, 'National accounting' is not obviously better "placed placed next to macroeconomics [in one section of the Template], growth, and development [in another section of the template]. Rather, it's physically impossible to do that in the current Economics sidebar, because they are in different sections.

2T. It would be better for "Macroeconomics" to place 'National accounting' closer to it (namely in the Template in the "methods" section) than next to Growth and Development. We need not look to graduate-course titles. National accounting is usually discussed at the beginning the macro section of Econ Principles textbooks. Placement in the Methods section would reflect that connection. Its placement there also works for Growth and Development, since it is a method that feeds into those subjects.

3T. National accounting' is simply the name of the methodology that 'National accounts' uses, as classified under in JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories at JEL: C8. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC) --22:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RE 1T: True.

RE 2T: The JEL-classification distinguishes the methodology of national accounting from the economics of national accounting. The presently existing National accounts article is about the latter; indeed, national accounting doesn't exist on Wikipedia (although there is a re-direct to national accounts).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

4T. Well, it's unnecessary to have 2 articles when one is sufficient to distinguish "national accounting" and "national accounts", per (3T) above [broken out from (2T) above]. "Economics of national accounting" might be good as an Econ principles textbook chapter title or subheading, but less good as an explanation of the difference between "national accounting" and "national accounts" IMO. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to this movement, since the WP article on accounts does emphasize methodological aspects. However, the same arguments can be made for the methodology of almost any area of economics, which all use abstraction and economic principles. I would again urge returning optimization and game theory (particularly the latter) to its rightful position as a methodology (as noted in the JEL classification).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

5T. Well, I am somewhat encouraged by the 1st sentence as to placement of National accounting in the template. As for the rest...

6T. Actually "Methodologies" was an earlier section title of the template, on which see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template_talk:Economics_sidebar/Archive_1#Proposed_edit_stemming_from_.22Methodologies.22_section. I think by common consent, it unnecessarily removed useful analytical distinctions of subjects. I hope that the above Edit is not a prelude to inviting more such problems with a template section heading of "Methodologies" or a return to "Methods" (argued against above at Template talk:Economics sidebar#"Technical methods" versus "Methods" heading in this template)).

7T. With the current Econometrics section in the template (replacing the "Mathematical & quantitative methods" previously versus "Technical methods" -- proposed successor to "Techniques" -- per above subsection), there is no "methods" section in the template currently.[6] The placement of Game theory & the presence (or not) of Optimization (mathematics) in the template were discussed at length earlier. These are fair topics for discussion. That's why they were discussed earlier. Bringing them up argumentatively in other distinct (sub)sections, such as this one, may garner support from some lacking the context of a fuller discussion, but I think that it may be prejudicial to an orderly consideration of distinct subjects (indicated by the (sub)section headings). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas, I am the only person reading your disputations, which apparently uniformly satisfy yourself; when your disputations do not convince me, they do not always seem worth my time in replying: Review your treatment of Merriam Webster, for example.

We are both intelligent and quite capable of arguing ad infinitum to each other's counter-arguments. I have told you that I find your way of arguing eccentric (with the considerable charms of intelligent eccentricity), but your increasingly rigid insistence on playing by your own rules and your tallying pluses and minuses is increasingly an irritation.

I challenge you to locate one discussion like this on Wikipedia where your medieval scholasticism has worked---not driven other discussants bananas. I also challenge you to find one discussion on Wikipedia that has involved me where I have not given in to a good argument, or been over-ruled by the consensus of the editors. Given my record of behavior, your continued lecturing down to me about the principles and practices of rational discussion and fair debate seems rude and counter-productive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To avoid a now-moot digression, I am deleting my 18:03, 5 April 2011 edit here, which invited KW to revise the above. KW did revise but not as I thought would improve this section. -- TM 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

ABY? I made copy edits, also.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

KW, I am saddened that the above comes across as vent from the start (“I am the only person...”). I don’t believe that I’m especially, much less uniformly, self-satisfied as to my edits. I have tried to list (dis)advantages of proposed/existing template edits and their related arguments in a reasonable way. I see nothing peculiar or wrong with that, despite my fallibility.

Earlier discussions where there were unresolved differences in views are evidence that respective co-discussants have fended for themselves. I don’t believe I have “lectured down” to KW. The “medieval scholasticism” comment looks like a suggestion of guilt by association.

In case of disagreement, it is a sign of respect for another's argument to take it seriously enough to criticize. I don’t believe that that is rude. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

The JEL C category has subsections on the "methodology " of national accounts.

The economic substance of national accounts, which is discussed in the WP article, heads JEL E01.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Methods" section revision

A recent Edit of the "Methods" section of the Econ sidebar included the following:

• changing the name of the section heading from "Techniques" [the heading since 8 November 2008] to "Methods"
• adding Optimization (mathematics) & Statistics
• dropping National accounting
• changing the sequential order to alphabetical from analytical
• moving Game theory up to this section from the "Fields and subfields" section.

It is reproduced and labelled (B) on the far right.

A case can be made for each of these, but I'd like to propose what I believe is a stronger case for (A) on the near right:

1. changing the heading to "Technical methods"

2. dropping the last 4 changes above.

(1) and (2) results in (A) on the near right. Arguments in favor of (A) include these.

1T. (A) is narrower and more balanced as to unused white space in different sections.

2T. (B) includes the Statistics and Optimization (mathematics), neither of them an economics article, unlike all the other articles in the sidebar. The earnest reader linking to those articles from the Econ sidebar could reasonably ask, "What does this have to do with economics?" and not get much of an answer.

3T. Recent edits of Econometrics and Mathematical economics include the (2T) links, giving the (2T) subjects a context per WP:LEAD, further lessening the need for the (2T) links in the template.

4T. What is important from statistics in economics is already a part of econometrics, as textbook links in Econometrics#References in the early chapters (or appendices in some advanced textbooks) make clear.

5T. "Technical methods" is a more brief term than "Mathematical and quantitative methods," the template-heading link to JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories. "Technical methods" is attested by the 1987 The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics Subject-Index classification term of "Techniques," which includes similar terms to the above JEL category link. "Methods" would invite mixing "technical" & "non-technical" methods (say Austrian economics or transaction cost methods), negating a useful analytical distinction "technical"/"non-technical", or unnecessarily invite the question "Why are all the articles in this section so technical?"

6T. National accounting is important (as the GDP-colored map in the sidebar suggests) and is included in the "Methods" link (that is, (B) Methods).

7T. The sequential order of (A) has the advantage of reflecting that Mathematical economics, which historically preceded Econometrics, joined math & econ. Econometrics adds stat to the math-econ union. Hence the ME-Metrics order on the 1st line. Experimental econ makes heavy use of econometrics (so reasonably follows it) & is micro-oriented. National accounting is macro oriented. That gives a micro-macro balance in the 2nd line, the same ordering as in the top section.

8T. The placement of Game theory in (A) is after Information economics in the sidebar, correctly suggesting that there is link between the 2 (as from games with Game theory#Perfect information and imperfect information) and before Industrial organization (where it is most frequently connected in principles of economics textbooks), lending it concreteness and context to placement. JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories placement [of "Game theory"] is here I believe less relevant than the WP:LEAD standard as to context. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics subject classification places Industrial organization and Game theory under the more general category of Economic organization, which agrees with the placement in (A) [in going from the general to the concrete]. [21:00, 3 December 2010] [--12:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)]

A little bit more on "Game theory" placement in (A) between "Information economics" and "Industrial organization":

• Lippman and McCall (2001}, "Information, Economics of," International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences uses about 50 percent of the Abstract to argue for the illuminating power in the formal link of information economics to game theory and its informal (that is, obvious, practical) link to industrial organization.

• As to Industrial organization, non-cooperative game theory has become the standard unifying method of analysis of firm strategic interactions in according to Jean Tirole in his (much-cited) The Theory of Industrial Organization (1988), p. 3. That is now so noted at the end of the Lead for the IO article. Part II, Strategic Interaction makes up more than half the book.

These 2 sources provide further analytical support for placement of "Game theory" in sidebar (A) above for WP:LEAD context. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to allow a week for comments (if any) before making the above Edit to (A). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor Thomasmeeks rightly notes that my revisions broadly followed the JEL classification, both in terminology for the category (methods versus techniques) and in the inclusion of the major subdivisions, especially statistics and (statistical) econometrics (which JEL lists in two clusters, for time-series statistics and simultaneous equation models). JEL does not list "national accounting" as a method, nor does any alternative classification.

The mathematical methods — mathematics, game theory, optimization, statistics — are not economic methods, but are mathematical methods that are used in economics, as they are used in other special sciences. From Samuelson to Varian, many economists have nearly defined economic theory as the application of optimization theory to allocation problems: leading economists and the JEL trump WP traditions, insofar as WP inspires to reflect the most reliable sources. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I trust that no one will mistake vigorous discussion to sort through things for anything other than that. Let me continue to number for ease of reference in the order of points raised above.

9T. The most "general" categories in JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories are:

JEL: C0 - General

JEL: C00 - General

JEL: C01 - Econometrics

JEL: C02 - Mathematical Methods

There is no mention of Statistics there. That is consistent with (3T & 4T) above.

10T. All mentions of "Statistical" in same JEL link above are paired with Econometric Methods or a subcategory of Econometric (and Statistical) Methods, consistent with (4T). Econometric and Statistical Methods are so paired is consistent with Econometrics incorporating statistical methods. per (4T). (That is, textbook econometrics and the JEL are not too proud to acknowledge a statistical-methods foundation of econometrics.)

11T. In JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, JEL: C82 - "Methodology for collecting, estimating, and organizing macroeconomic data" corresponds to National accounting, though its exact wording is different. I don't believe that a semantic difference applied to the same category can bear much weight.

12T. The disputed Econ sidebar link implied by the (A) sidebar above is not "Economics as (constrained) optimization" (allocating scarce resource to unlimited wants) but Optimization (mathematics). So, the relevance of the latter, rather than the former in this section, is at issue. And that's the relevance of parsimonious and well-placed links for the general reader and WP:LEAD guidelines per (2T, 3T, & 4T) and (8T). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the JEL lists "Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" first, listing statistical methods that are not restricted to econometrics, before listing the two areas of econometric statistics (time series and simultaneous equations, I noted previously).

JEL: C10 - General JEL: C11 - Bayesian analysis JEL: C12 - Hypothesis testing JEL: C13 - Estimation JEL: C14 - Semiparametric and nonparametric methods JEL: C15 - Statistical Simulation methods JEL: C16 - Statistical distributions JEL: C16 - Specific Distributions

JEL: C19 - Other

Second, few monitor templates. TM, would you please post a notice on the Wiki Project Economics, asking for third opinions. I posted an invitation for other comments on the talk page for the Wiki Project Economics. (09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

13T. Well, IMO I have already met the first point above at (4T). Consultation of the textbook [links] at Econometrics confirms the point.

14T. Per (9T), "JEL: C0 - General" comes before "JEL: C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" (with classification guidelines for each at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php) and on its face is more general in not qualifying "general" as a descriptive section of JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, unlike later groupings.

15T. This may be an ongoing discussion. Anyone may join it or post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics to that effect. On the latter, I am not so inclined now, but I'm not offended by the invitation.

On a personal note, I have tried to be guided by the principle of charity from philosophy in WP discussions to improve my understanding of a position with which I might disagree (initially at least), either to formulate my position better or to be persuaded by others. One reason for the length of this section might be that there are serious points that need(ed) to be worked through.

I cannot edit here for awhile, so no more huffing and puffing on this side (; ) till then. Have a good day, KW (and this page's "band of others" who are of course welcome to join the fun here). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) --TM 11:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsections

I am adding subsections to this discussion, to allow some of us to focus on a few key issues (amid many raised in TM's excellent & organized discussion). (I shall refactor some of the above discussions.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) --TM 11:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Technical methods" versus "Methods" heading (in this template)

"5T. (1) ["Technical methods"] is a more brief term [than] the link of "Mathematical and quantitative methods [JEL: C Subcategories]" and attested by the 1987 The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics] subject classification of "Techniques," which includes similar terms to the JEL category. "Methods" would invite mixing "technical" & "non-technical" methods (say Austrian economics or transaction cost methods), negating a useful analytical distinction ["technical"/"non-technical"], or unnecessarily invite the question "Why are all the articles in this section so technical?" (TM)

5.1T. Per the query below & maintenance of continuity for the above (but at the risk of belaboring the above), "technical" in "Technical methods" of sidebar (A) above at Template talk:Economics sidebar#"Methods" section revision serves as a shortened alternative to "Mathematical and quantitative." It has the same warrant as "Techniques" in the The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics Subject Index of "Techniques" at the end of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. The latter source includes (among others), the corresponding articles listed in sidebar A (that is, Mathematical economics, Econometrics, Experimental economics, and National accounting) & in the associated JEL: C Subcategories link above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

5.2T. I don't believe that 'technical' is "wrong" in 'technical methods' as a grammatical modifier of 'methods' (whether "technical" or not), any more than 'Techniques' is "wrong" in the Subject Index of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics per (5.1T) as a heading for corresponding articles there, which also appear under the "Technical methods" headings at sidebar (A) above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "technical". Perhaps you mean "formal" or "mathematical"?

The answer is that like other fields, economics is increasingly mathematical. Students of economics who wish to qualify for (serious) doctoral study must study at least multivariate calculus, linear algebra, calculus-based probability, calculus-based statistics, and preferably additional courses in statistical methods/econometrics and in mathematics. A first-year student in a serious Ph.D. program studies a year of microeconomics, macroeconomics, econometrics, and mathematics for economists (nonlinear optimization theory, elementary topology, convex sets, fixed-point theory, and the simplest models of variational calculus/control/dynamic programming); some programs allow a history of economics substitution. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the first line of the preceding comment, my response is indented above. Thanks.

P.P.S. I simultaneously posted another reply in the following subsection. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In that meaning, then "technical" is wrong. The phrase "mathematical and quantitative" is redundant, since mathematics includes qualitative phenomena (especially topology popular in economics, particurly fixed-point theory in combinatorial/algebraic topology and Morse theory in differential topology, but also partially ordered sets).

The (mis)definition of mathematics as the science of quantitative phenomena was, like dueling, widespread in Germany in the 1800s, when it was criticized as ignorant confusion by Charles Sanders Peirce. Pragmatically, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the preceding, I have responded at (5.2T) above to maintain continuity there. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) --TM 11:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Statistics/Optimization as "Methods" (in this template)

"2T. (B) includes the Statistics and Optimization (mathematics), neither of them an economics article, unlike all the other articles in the sidebar. The earnest reader linking to those articles from the Econ sidebar could reasonably ask, "What does this have to do with economics?" and not get much of an answer.

"3T. Recent edits of Econometrics and Mathematical economics include the (2T) links, giving the (2T) subjects a context per WP:LEAD, further lessening the need for the (2T) links in the template.

"4T. What is important from statistics in economics is already a part of econometrics, as textbook [links] in Econometrics#References in the early chapters (or appendices in some advanced textbooks) make clear." (TM)

Editor Thomasmeeks rightly notes that my revisions broadly followed the JEL classification, both in terminology for the category (methods versus techniques) and in the inclusion of the major subdivisions, especially statistics and (statistical) econometrics (which JEL lists in two clusters, for time-series statistics and simultaneous equation models). JEL does not list "national accounting" as a method, nor does any alternative classification.

The mathematical methods — mathematics, game theory, optimization, statistics — are not economic methods, but are mathematical methods that are used in economics, as they are used in other special sciences. From Samuelson to Varian, many economists have nearly defined economic theory as the application of optimization theory to allocation problems: leading economists and the JEL trump WP traditions, insofar as WP inspires to reflect the most reliable sources. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I trust that no one will mistake vigorous discussion to sort through things for anything other than that. Let me continue to number for ease of reference in the order of points raised above.

9T. The most "general" categories in JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories are:

JEL: C0 - General

JEL: C00 - General

JEL: C01 - Econometrics

JEL: C02 - Mathematical Methods

There is no mention of Statistics there. That is consistent with (3T & 4T) above.

10T. All mentions of "Statistical" in same JEL link above are paired with Econometric Methods or a subcategory of Econometric (and Statistical) Methods, consistent with (4T). Econometric and Statistical Methods are so paired is consistent with Econometrics incorporating statistical methods. per (4T). (That is, textbook econometrics and the JEL are not too proud to acknowledge a statistical-methods foundation of econometrics.)

11T. In JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, JEL: C82 - "Methodology for collecting, estimating, and organizing macroeconomic data" corresponds to National accounting, though its exact wording is different. I don't believe that a semantic difference applied to the same category can bear much weight.

12T. The disputed Econ sidebar link implied by the (A) sidebar above is not "Economics as (constrained) optimization" (allocating scarce resource to unlimited wants) but Optimization (mathematics). So, the relevance of the latter, rather than the former in this section, is at issue. And that's the relevance of parsimonious and well-placed links for the general reader and WP:LEAD guidelines per (2T, 3T, & 4T) and (8T). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the JEL lists "Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" first, listing statistical methods that are not restricted to econometrics, before listing the two areas of econometric statistics (time series and simultaneous equations, I noted previously).

JEL: C10 - General JEL: C11 - Bayesian analysis JEL: C12 - Hypothesis testing JEL: C13 - Estimation JEL: C14 - Semiparametric and nonparametric methods JEL: C15 - Statistical Simulation methods JEL: C16 - Statistical distributions JEL: C16 - Specific Distributions

JEL: C19 - Other (KW)

13T. Well, IMO I have already met the first point above at (4T). Consultation of the textbook links at Econometrics#References confirms the point.

14T. Per (9T), "JEL: C0 - General" comes before "JEL: C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General" (with classification guidelines for each at http://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php) and on its face is more general in not qualifying "general" as a descriptive section of JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories, unlike later groupings. (TM)

Wooldridge's undergraduate textbook is a counter-example to your claim, since Wooldridge explains statistical methods as appropriate for randomized experiments and (so-called) "econometric methods as appropriate for observational data" (shudder of horror). Another book you cite, by Pindyck and Rubinfield, exhibits the ecological regression fallacy in many, many chapters. Far from incorporating statistics, most econometric textbooks are incompetent and violate the main principles of the first 3 weeks of a course in statistics. Murray's book is much better (on statistics and economics), and I hope that it shall be reprinted: However, it wasn't listed.

TM may be right to suggest that microeconomics is increasing its concern for experimental design, following the embarrassments of Heckman-type analysis of observational data (PSID). However, macroeconomics is experimental, also: For discussions of experimentation and macroeconomics, see Wold's presidential address to the Econometric Society and see Morgenstern's essays. 13:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

15T. Let try to address the preceding. The relevant Wooldridge econometrics textbook discussion at p. 2 does not say that econometrics makes no use of statistics. Rather, he says there that "econometricians have borrowed from mathematical statisticians wherever possible," including the method of multiple regression, a mainstay for both groups. Wooldridge goes on to review and expand on those math stat methods in chapters 1-9 of the book. As to broad subjects, they might just as well have appeared in a math stat textbook. Nor does he say that econometricians don't use statistical methods for experimental purposes, for of course they do use such methods, including multiple regression. All of this is consistent with (9-10T) and (13-14T) above.

I knew that I would be in a bad mood if I looked at Wooldridge. Page 6: Wooldridge treats convenience samples as random samples. Page 13 (appropriately ill-fated numbering, numerologically), Wooldridge states (expressing wishful thinking volition or erroneous future tense) that "we will (sic.) eventually see that ... econometric methods can simulate a ceteris paribus experiment", which imho implies more than the possibility of monkeys typing Shakespeare, and strike me as not exemplifying the RSS/ISI code of ethics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

15.1T. As to the Econometrics#References book, Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld (P&R) (1976; 1998, 4th ed.), Econometric Methods and Economic Forecasts, McGraw-Hill, both authors are noted in econometrics.[7][8] Minimimizing (as distinct from lessening) the ecological inference problem is a relatively advanced subject.[9] It is an example of an aggregation problem in econometrics,[10] which P&S discuss in the more general context of model specification (such as choice of variables to include) and a way that potentially eliminates the problem, use of micro (non-aggregated) panel data over time. But, yes, in their numerical examples, P&S may have failed to warn readers of an ecological inference problem or what specifically could be done about it.

Not only do Pindyck and Rosenbeld fail to warn readers about ecological inference, but they commit the ecological inference fallacy many times, sometimes in examples from their published articles: I remember a fallacious regression of Michigan county politics and home-prices, if my memory is correct. It wouldn't be wrong to label such a regression only a heuristic, and then investigate whether it works or not, of course.

A fine treatment of ecological regression occurs in an early chapter in the Berkeley textbook Statistics (David Freedman and company), which I recommend. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

15.2T. As to the anti-most-introductory-econometrics-textbooks remarks above, I believe for the reasons noted above that such an opinion [or its opposite for that matter] should not have much weight as to inclusion of "Statistics" (or not) in the Econ sidebar, which is a focus of this section.

P.S. The reference to Herman Wold's presidential address to the Econometric Society above now appears in the Econometrics article with due credit there.

P.P.S. I simultaneously posted another reply in the previous subsection. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Wold is increasingly recognized by Judea Pearl and others, and deserves recognition by others. It was very nice of you to credit this discussion! 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)~

Time stamp added to prevent premature archiving. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) --TM 11:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)