Talk:Profit (accounting)

Untitled
About the suggested merger with Net Income: Agree that all articles concerning profit/income/earnings need to be more closely synchronized - there's a huge mess of synonymous terminology that's confusing, at least for the uninitiated. Disagree with a merger with net income, though - there are many other proft terms that do not translate directly into 'net income' which should be discussed under profit. One could consider a merge with 'income', but this term is so broad that we would lose usefulness => keep the existing split but synchronize articles more closely - with today's edits hopefully being a first step :-)

Update: Considering that the 'discuss proposed merger' tag has been there for over half a year without any comments I will remove it.

--Hakseng (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Revenue" instead of "price" in definition?
In the 1st sentence of the head, shouldn't the definition of profit be the difference between (total) revenue and (total) cost of producing a good or service (and bringing it to the market), instead of cost vs. price (which is a per-unit, or average, measure)? Using "revenue," "total revenue," etc. would be consistent with the usage in the rest of the article, but "price" isn't consistent. --Jackftwist (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bulk of initial content not useful for general public
The abrupt swinging of content into the form-of-production deep-dive appears to be skewed. As noted by the author of this section, while "Profit is one of the major sources of economic well-being ", economic well-being is not a necessary nor sufficient outcome to warrant a lengthy discourse. Profit in the spirit of accounting should be more useful to the general public when anchored upon relevant authoritative publications by institutions or at least an authoritative historical discourse such as that of John Hicks'. I propose that we either split this into two articles (1:economic well-being 2:accounting profit) or replace the entire section to define and cite sources useful to the general public. Am happy to do that if there's no objections.--justexamples 16:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is advised to make improving additions. Deliting essetial parts of text without very good arguments may be seen as vandalism. So far such arguments have not been presented. Sepsaar (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposed delete of section on productionThe reasons cited above are WP:IRRELEVANT - "entire section on production process is irrelevant and referenced to non-reliable sources. You appended this section using deductive reasoning, but the following premise is not axiomatic "Economic well-being is created in a production process". Also, economic well-being is not a necessary nor sufficient outcome to warrant a lengthy discourse. ". Also, please refer to WP:BRD justexamples 05:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justexamples (talk • contribs)

About the Third Opinion Request: The request made in regard to the foregoing dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If any editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. By the way, new discussions on an article talk page always go at the bottom of the page. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)