Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics

WikiProject Economics Guidelines
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 07:11, October 5 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * (ordered alphabetically except for filing party)


 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

 * , main dispute

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * RfC on the inclusion of editing guidelines to the Econ wikiproject page WT:WikiProject_Economics
 * Extensive heated discussion over the last few weeks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics


 * : Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.''

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * What should be included in 'Article Guidelines' for economics related articles? Should these guidelines exist?
 * Does policy (e.g. WP:SOURCES) support the claim that for economics articles "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available"?
 * In economics related articles, when considering weight in reliable sources for WP:Undue weight, should academic and peer-reviewed publications carry more weight than other sources? If so, how much more weight?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.


 * How should reliability of sources / notability / weight deal with academically acceptable disciplinary practices not in the mainstream disciplinary practice of economics? (Ie: Heterodox economics, Marxist economics)
 * How should reliability of sources / notability / weight deal with non-academic practices not in the academic practices of economics? (Non academic think tanks, journals, associations, societies)
 * Additional issue 3.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. LK (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. C RETOG 8(t/c) 10:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. Morphh   (talk) 12:15, 05 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree JQ (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree. skip sievert (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree. -- Vision Thing -- 08:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section ; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
 * Accept
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)