Talk:Physics of financial markets

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physics of financial markets article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References[edit]

The fact "quantitative finance and econophysics only deal with modeling financial instruments without seeking to understand nature of underlying processes" can be verified by their definitions, references to which are already provided in the links to the corresponding wiki articles. Algostox (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the definition of QF or econophysics exactly, it's the statement that "physics of financial markets is a very young discipline and has not been shaped yet." I don't disagree with that, but it's a subjective statement which still needs a reliable source. Information which you know to be true but which isn't supported by reliable sources is WP:OR, and using sources about the definition of those other disciplines to indicate things about this one risks WP:SYNTH. Other Wikipedia articles should not be used for sources, see WP:CIRC. If sources used in other articles specifically apply to this one, then use them to support the content. Information in articles must be verifiable. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. I agree with you and eliminated that "subjective" element. Algostox (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]