Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic spectrum

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). FireFox 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic spectrum[edit]

This is unsourced and full of original research. Pilatus 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The page reminds me of Political Compass, which is probably its source. The page just needs to be improved, not deleted. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt it. The political compass is different to what this article espouses. Look at the article as the original author created it. This is an opinionated essay that editors have attempted to clean up as best they can. But since the article has no sources, there has been no goal to actually aim for, and what is left after the more overtly opinionated parts were excised is not very coherent. Moreover: The section on the political spectrum is contradicted by our political spectrum article. Uncle G 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a bad article, could use with a little expansion. YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is beyond salvation. Sigh. Pilatus 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep and expand. -- JJay 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is that supposed to happen? This is an essay from User:Paganbaby without sources, worse than that, there isn't the slightest indication that "economic spectrum" has ever been used to describe the degree of government control on the economy. Since you vote to "keep", can you at least provide a roadmap what to do with it? Pilatus 06:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to assume your request is disengenuous since you have made no attempt to improve the page. No talk page message was left prior to AfD and you long ago expressed the belief that the page was beyond salvation. I also assume that if I fail to hand you a blueprint for improving this article you will next claim that my vote is baseless, or unfounded and should not be counted- as that seems to be a common approach among noms. While your defeatism may appear seductive, my thinking is based on the following: the term is far too common not to have a page here. This is shown by google, google scholar, google books, a search of newspaper databases, etc. The term has been in wide use throughout the English speaking world since at least the 1920s. I have found many examples in government, academic and financial reports. Therefore, I believe, the best approach would be to come up with a definition for the term and provide examples. If that requires deleting the nonsense down to a stub, and expanding from there, then sobeit. The editors who will continue to contribute to the page are certainly experienced enough to undertake this process. I'm sure they would welcome your contribution. -- JJay 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did you actually look at any of the references that you say you have found? Wherever Google Scholar finds the phrase "Economic spectrum" (often as its synonym "socio-economic spectrum") it nothing but the gamut of income from poor to rich, this is trivial and at best a dictdef. It certainly doesn't mean the degree of government control on the economy. As such, there is nothing salvageable here, the unsourced essay that currently resides under the lemma discourages editors to contribute. (Note: the last good edit was back in July.) Delete, and maybe redirect to social class or somesuch is my roadmap, as there is nothign to be gained from the history is my roadmap. What is yours? Pilatus 04:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So I was right, you are being disengenuous. Thanks for wasting my time. [1]-- JJay 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not from political compass. The discipline of political science uses these terms(political system, democracy, totalitarian,economic system, market economy, centrally planned economy, ideology, socialist ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, spectrum,left-right rate of change spectrum(i.e., radical, liberal, conservative, reactionary) as a matter of course. What is lacking is proper distinctions between the four separate spectra because of the use of the same word, liberal, for instance, to refer to completely different subject matters. Liberal, in one instance, is refering to the rate of change that is advocated. In another instance the same word is used to refer to a particular ideology comprised of: private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government per John Locke. The same can be said of the term conservative as a measurement of rate of change and at the same time a description of a particular ideology. For many people(societies) the distinction is not made and political systems are equated with economic systems. Even in Wikipedia this situation exists in some of the discussions. Hence, in the mind of many, democracy=market economy and totalitarian=centrally planned economy. Or, in another way, it is: democracy=capitalism/free market and socialism=totalitarianism. This is an error because in each case a political system is being equated with an economic system. How should all of this be sorted out? Correct definitions and correct applications according to the proper spectrum would help--wouldn't it? Is there a definition used that is incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.18.131 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Solid B work as an Econ 101 paper. But this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 12:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The reference to the entry as being contrary to Wikipedia's political spectrum entry is accurate. Here is part of the Wikipedia entry(in the Left-Right heading):

"In modern Western countries, the political spectrum is described along left-right lines. This political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy and fascism("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism("the Left") on the other."

There are problems here that confuse rather than clarify.Theocracy describes a particular type of political system. Socialism/communism/fascism describes particular types of economic systems that have particular types of political systems. The reference to conservatism is not clear as to the intent. Is a particular ideology based on inequality and status being determined at birth being refered to(medieval Europe)? Or is this a reference to a preference to maintain the status quo in a society; which is a rate of change measurement? Many people and societies equate a democratic political system with a market economic system(democracy=capitalism.) They also have a tendency to equate a centrally planned economic system with a totalitarian political system(socialism=totalitarianism). This ignores the fact that there are separate political and economic spectra and where a country is located on one does not necessarily dictate where a country will be located on the other. In a democratic country, the people can choose to have any type of economic system they want. If they cannot choose the economic system that they desire--it is not a democracy. Fascism has a market economic system and a totalitarian political system. Socialism(communism is one type) has a centrally planned economic system and a democratic political system. Socialism has never existed in a modern society. The USSR(nor any of the others that claimed to be) was never socialist nor communist for that reason. How does the average citizen, who looks at an encylopedia to try and makes sense of these terms, deal with the fact that there terms that have different meaning depending upon the reference? How is the term liberal being used? As a reference to a society that has an ideology based upon private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government? Or is it a reference to a measurement of being willing to accept a measure of change? Shouldn't an encylopedia try to sort all of this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. "Economic spectrum" is at best a neologism. It does not even qualify as a dictionary definition. It is basically two good words put together (Probably an analogy to "Political spectrum") – which is deceptive. +Economic +spectrum is nothing but two words, each with its own connotation.--Ezeu 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP. I have heard the phrase used numerous times - going back at least ten years. The concept is both notable and verifiable, with over 83,000 Google hits [2]. The article certainly does need a major overhaul and cleanup though! Blackcats 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give a link to an article referring to "Economic spectrum" as a notable term – not merely a combination of two words in the same sentence, or a neologism?--Ezeu 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of sources that use the phrase as a notable term (such as this one), but after looking into it more closely, I see that the way that it's used is quite different from the way that it's used in this article. It's generally used to describe the spectrum of social classes from dire poverty to extreem wealth, and not to describe a spectrum of economic systems. So in light of this, I'm changing my vote to redirect to Social class. Perhaps at some point an article can be written specifically about the concept of a spectrum of classes. Blackcats 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to social class. (nb - I also removed the spaces at the start of the above quote to prvent the horrible formatting) Proto t c 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just another way of chopping up things, but not in use in this way. You will encounter "on the economic spectrum" in newspapers, for example, but that reference is self-evident. We all know already that some economies have greater, some lesser control by elected and governmental officials, but all are under control of one thing or another. This is just a reiteration of that obvious fact. Nor do I think there is a need for a redirect, except perhaps to Economics, and that, I think, is already implicit in the term and therefore unneeded. Delete for original research. Geogre 16:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the reasoning mentioned in the last post would suggest that the term political spectrum be deleted also. It is just two separate words that are used in the newspapers and it has greater or lesser control by elected and government officials. Social class? An economic system spectrum is not a measurement of social class. If there is a reference to a political systems spectrum in an encylopedia, shouldn't there be a reference to an economics system spectrum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005
    • Check out the link I posted above - "Vietnam Deaths Spread Over Economic Spectrum." This was saying that US casualties in the war ran the full gammot from poor to rich. That's how the term is generally used. If you think that a discussion of various economic systems as a spectrum is needed, then if you find some good sources to cite go ahead and add a new section to Economic system. If that section gets big enough it could become its own article with a title like "spectrum of economic systems." Also, a note could be placed on the "social class" article to the effect that "economic spectrum redirect here - see blah-blah-blah for other uses..." Blackcats 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless "adopted" by someone who promises to find citations, and to bring it back here if they cannot be found. "Economic Spectrum" in the sense of the gamut from poor to rich is not encyclopedic; neither is this unreferenced and (in some places) POV essay that appears to be a variant political spectrum. If some significant writer has actually used this term in a manner parallel to "political spectrum" to refer to a range of views about economics, or something similar to that, fine, but I see no evidence of that. (Some of the material in this article may belong elsewhere in Wikipedia, if it can be cited.) - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete seems borderline, but not encyclopedic. Would need a lot of work. maybe a copyedit tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator1 (talk • contribs) 13 Dec 2005
  • Delete Original research, unverifiable. Chick Bowen 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An economic systems spectrum is unverifiable? A market economy is unverifiable? A command economy(centrally planned is less biased, in my view) is unverifiable? The same query applies to the ideologies of conservative, liberal, and socialist. On the rate of change spectrum running from radical through liberal and conservative to reactionary this is considered as inappropriate? A political spectrum is proper but, not an economic spectrum expressing the range of economic systems available? These terms are not new. The analysis is not new. Isn't Wikipedia an opportunity for accurate information to be presented in a manner that the average citizen can understand? There is much confusion about distinctions about political and economic systems. Note the effort to try and make any discussion of economic systems spectrum a discussion of social class or rich and poor. Why? That is not the subject. How to make sense of the different meanings of these terms is the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs)
    • There is no indication that anyone has ever used the word "economic spectrum" to refer to the economic system present in a country. Please read WP:V. There is also no indication of the concepts put forth in the article anywhere in the literature. Do read WP:NOR. Pilatus 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where a country is located on an economic spectrum is the proper way to use the concept of an economic spectrum. Of course it is not proper to use the term economic spectrum to refer to the economic system present in a given country. What is useful is to have a range (sometimes visual) that gives expression to the relative position of various countries of the world on the economic spectrum.
                   Command economy_______________________________________________ Market economy
                  (planned economy)                                               ( free market economy)

Where should the UK be placed on this spectrum? The US? Sweden? China? Haiti? Wouldn't this be valuable information for people to have access to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 December 2005

  • Delete The topic should be covered, but there's nothing redeemable here.--Bkwillwm 07:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced original research. Tagged for references, none provided. WP:V is firm policy, as is [{WP:NOR]]. Where can I verify this from neutral secondary sources? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_spectrum&oldid=1079909516"