Talk:Monopoly profit

message: MGMontini (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections

message: I must admit, I feel rather insulted that the value of the content is listed as "Stub".  I feel this is highly unjustified.  
<BR/>
Of course the article involves Definition since it simply characterizes the term "Economic Profit".  However, in this endeavor, I have covered some of the causes of "Economic Profit", an established explanation as to the (only) possible reasons "Economic Profit" can exist that is predominent throughout the community of Economists.  Because Wiki articles must contain legitimate professional and verifiable references (rightly so), I have used a few "beginner's" text books as well as some established "Dictionaries" of Finance and Economics in order to allow any user/reader/verifier to easily verify the validity of the article's content, understand the sources for the content and how the sources' Economic discussions relate to the  content, and to easily understand the (many) basic concepts embodied in this article if they go to these "Dictionaries" or any of the "Basic" texts out there.  Only one of these Text Books is a more "complex" book; containing mostly the analysis embodied in a mathematical modeling methodology.   Again the reason for this is simply to allow the average Wiki user to easily go to "Beginner's" Economic books (even in the "For Dummy" Series) and easily understand related discussions that form the basis for the content, and the additional related discussions that might be extended from this content.  The "Complex" book was used here (as a reference/Footnote) because some of the other "Beginner's Texts" could not be used to fully verify some of the content footnoted by the MIT book as being established thought within the community of Economic/Finance Professionals; and the MIT analysis is extremely important in forming a (small but important) portion of the content.  In order to ensure this content can be justified to the Editors, and in order to allow this content to explain some important concepts/facts to the less knowledgeable (in this subject) reader, the "Complex" reference was used even though it would be difficult for the average (less knowledgeable) reader of the article to read the source/reference if they so chose.  The other sources, and any other similar sources they can find in any library/book store, does allow the average reader to refer to another "source" for this content and completely understand the material in the source and how it relates to the content of the article.
<BR/>
Please understand, any Encyclopedia is not meant to be an "end all" reference and explanation.  It is only a relatively brief, comprehensive, understanding of the basic underpinnings of the subject matter, so as to allow the reader enough understanding of the subject matter to either know how to continue a more "in depth" research that should be far more comprehensive in all details, and relevant theoretical and historical matters that relate to the topic, or to provide enough basic understanding of the subject matter so as to allow the reader to converse somewhat intelligently about it and more easily understand any further reading done in the subject matter.  An encyclopedia has never been meant to surplant a "Text Book", only to supplement it as a preliminary understanding of many of the "Text book" Extensive and Detailed analysis.  Neither does it serve the average reader to have a "text book" detail in an encyclopedia article; for the average user does not want to read an entire (lengthy) text book (chapter) on the subject if they are coming to an encyclopedia.  The average user wants a brief and 'comprehensive' description of the relevant ideas concerning the subject matter, so that they have enough to have a 'basic' understanding of the relevant issues, and will only delve into further detail if they truly are interested in doing so, and only into those particular portions of the subject matter they feel they need to research further.  
<BR/>
This is why I feel the "Stub" indicator is unwarranted.  I feel the content of the article does exactly this.  It is not that I feel nothing can possibly be added to improve/expand the article in a good and relevant fashion, but I do feel what has been done already is substantial enough to stand on its own merits if no-one adds to the article.  TO indicate the quality is in any way inferior, I believe, is a mistake.  I challenge anyone to go to any beginning 'Economics College "Text Book"' to find much more material on this subject matter than is already bwritten in this encyclopedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmwki (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I'm the one who gave the article a "stub" rating, but I did so in June 2008 . At the time, the state of the article was very different , and I certainly felt "stub" was appropriate. I'm not spending much time thinking about Wikipedia right now, including not seriously re-reading the article or your comments above. That's not to disparage you in any way, just to say may brain's really full right now. You should feel free to either change the rating yourself or ask for a new rating from someone over at WikiProject Economics. In a quick glance it looks like you've done good work. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating of the Content of the Article 

message: Please have some knowledge of Economics (this is an Economics Concept) before making changes to this article.  Please do not make an attempt to "correct" a cited section; especially if you are not using an accredited source: textbooks from an accredited University, or at least a "For Dummies" or "Teach Yourself..." books from reputable sources.  I, other viable contributors, and the readers (looking for accredited and reliable information) will all appreciate if this courtesy is extended. 
</BR>
Please note that everthing in this article has been properly footnoted and has proper citations from the accredited academic and professional literature.MGMontini (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be Courteous: Do Not Remove valid Cited Sections, Only Add valid Cited Sentences - Reputable sources 

message: Dr. Pappa has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Pappa has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Fabio Canova & Luca Gambetti & Evi Pappa, 2006. "The structural dynamics of output growth and inflation: some international evidence," Economics Working Papers 971, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Aug 2006.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Pappa's comment on this article