Talk:Austrian business cycle theory/Archives/2011/September

Though disputed

For some reason, an editor seems to insist on removing this sourced qualifier from the sentence which reads, "Though disputed,[19] Austrian scholars assert that a boom taking place under these circumstances is actually a period of wasteful malinvestment..."

WP:DUE is completely unambiguous on this point, "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." and that "these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant".

'Nuff said, as far as I am concerned. BigK HeX (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE says: "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

BigK HeX's interpretation of this is that if we have an uninterrupted explanation of ABCT, the site is essentially saying "ABCT is true". This is nonsense--the article has to explain it. We don't need to include "though disputed" because the article never says "ABCT is true". The correct interpretation of this point of WP:STRUCTURE is that an article which explains an event needs to have different interpretations folded in, or else there is one interpretation being presented. Here, the simple fact is that there is only one interpretation of what ABCT is--whatever the person(s) who created say it is; an explanation is not the same as an evaluation.

If we were going to consistently apply BigK HeX's interpretation, we'd be putting "though disputed" before every point of view in every article. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

Keeler source

RE: "it's an Austrian theory, it's bound to be Austrians presenting it"

Well yes, it's Austrians presenting it. However, it's also only Austrians referring to this work, making it a questionable source.

Per WP:RS, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals"

On a related note, the Keeler source has garnered approximately zero attention from the majority of relevant experts [mainstream economists], which brings us to potential WP:NOT problems with possibly undue advocacy of Keeler's minority viewpoint. Stated in WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia is not a forum for .... promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere."

Also there is WP:NPOV, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.". This Keeler "counter-argument" as currently written does precisely what policy states should not be done. BigK HeX (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If there's an article on a subculture, then it's appropriate to give weight to that subculture's expressions of itself. This bit is from the Review of Austrian Economics which appears to be as respectable as Austrian economics gets. So, within the sphere of Austrian economics, this seems to me (on a very surface level, I haven't so much as read the abstract) a good reference. In the piece you removed and I restored, it identifies Keeler as an Austrian economist, so there's no mis-representation. (That said, I'm not watching what's going on closely, so I'll probably miss follow-ups to this conversation or changes to the article.)CRETOG8(t/c) 08:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It mentions him being Austrian, but that doesn't really change that the average reader would be led by that passage into thinking that both Friedman and some-unknown-guy-named-Keeler had equal validity, which is not the case and thus is a violation of NPOV. BigK HeX (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)