Let's not encourage dead red links if the article hasn't been created yet. It's both annoying and some people will click on the link wondering what's going on. Also "schools of economic thought" is not a major issue here - it's not even a technical term that needs explanation. Just my thoughts. If you want to add back the red link please include "a" before the phrase. Surprisingly this has been missing for months.Karmaisking 13:35, 1 June 2011 (MSD)
- Hello Karmaisking, if you wish to voice an opinion about red links, please join the discussion on the Commons page and refrain from reverting edits made in good faith and per discussions already held. --John James 14:34, 1 June 2011 (MSD)
- OK JJ. - Karmaisking 04:40, 2 June 2011 (MSD)
Seriously? I honestly cannot tell if this is trolling, but it sure seems like it. We are not about to start censoring this wiki on grounds of alleged "defamation". Certainly not of dead people. And certainly not of dead people who explicitly stated that no one can have a property right in the beliefs and minds of other people (and that therefore defamation protections are bunk). --John James (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (MSD)
Maintaining a definition
"Austrian economists maintain that inflation is by definition..."
This is a nonsensical sentence. One can maintain that some fact is true. One can propose a definition. But it would be absurd to maintain that a definition is true.
- I think what is maintained here is that inflation by definition is X, rather than popularly known Y - which is exactly what is under discussion in that section. Maybe we can find a better-worded description? Pestergaines (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2017 (EDT)