Talk:Static analysis

As the discussion over at dynamic scoring indicates, this term is used in the fashion described here only in the context of US budget policy disputes. The distinction in physics between statics and dynamics is totally unrelated to what is presented here. I've tried to give a reasonably NPOV description of how the term is actually used. I deleted all the non-budget examples, which were all irrelevant and mostly incorrect. Much of the article read as if it was taken straight from the Newt Gingrich site given as the only link - material of this kind should be quoted and attributed, not reproduced as fact. JQ 08:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• No longer sounds like (or is) a diatribe :) ... now has properly attributed quotes from a wide variety of sources, from many fields and perspectives. Mr Pete (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

As it is now, the article is unclear enough that I tagged it as such. I don't know anything about what kind of analysis is being talked about, or what "scoring" means. I think the article needs to start with a bit more context. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More Cleanup

hi i think it may be clearly defined through economic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.232.34 (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit of additional reference material that balances what is presented, and demonstrates that while the term itself is not yet used across the political spectrum, the underlying principles have an historical bipartisan basis. In that sense, it can hardly be termed pejorative, so I've also removed the pejorative link.

It's also true that I can only find references using this term with respect to economic policy, not just "US budget policy disputes" but the larger and more academic discipline of economic policy. I.e., "US budget policy disputes" is a subset of the larger topic of economic policy, whether in the political or business context, for example. Mr Pete (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Political bias

The economic policy section is a thinly veiled assertion of the premises of supply-side economics as established fact, which is, frankly, flabbergasting. As it stands this article should be considered to be captured by a particular political ideology. 2601:A:480:24D:D1D4:4A10:120C:24DC (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A mess

This article is a complete mess. It started out years ago defining the title term as extrapolating short term trends to the long term, and the examples are still in that mold. But the lead definition has evolved to "the effect of an immediate change to a system is calculated without respect to the longer term response of the system to that change." Not the same thing--short term analysis need not be improperly exptrapolated. I'm going to restore to the lead something about improper extrapolation.

The examples are not sourced, and at least one of them (the ice age example) is historically untrue, and another (assuming it's going to keep snowing for the next sixty years) is utterly ridiculous. I'm going to delete those two and put citation-needed tags on the others.

The history section says in its entirety "The term "static analysis" was used in 1977 in an international academic journal,[2] in a discussion of tax policy. In recent years, it has become very common in academic, business, and political discussions of US government economic policy." Now this is just absurd: The cited article has "comparative static analysis" in its title, and (as that author understood) this term has been in use in economics since the 1940s. This makes me wonder if the term "static analysis" is nothing more than an earlier Wikipedia editor's naive shortening of "comparative static analysis", in which case this page ought to be just deleted. I won't open that can of worms, but I'll delete the ridiculous history section and put a factual-accuracy tag on the article as a whole. Loraof (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)