Talk:Perspectives on capitalism by school of thought

Notation

Wiki style usually recommends that the main version of the page should be capitalized as 'Perspectives on capitalism', rather than 'Perspectives on Capitalism'. I don't know how to change that... would someone take care of it please? Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See also section

It's a bit, ummm, complete. I suspect that several of them are linked in the article (or via templates), and should be removed. Right now it's rather overwhelming. Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For 'several' read thirty-seven. —Tamfang (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks better, but it's still out of control. You really shouldn't have to use headers in a See Also because of the volume. There's already the econ sidebar, and I've added the econ footer as well. Those two should reduce the number of links some more. Right now there's such a huge number of links in see also that you've really eliminated the usefulness of that section. Someone's going to see that and skip over it because there's just so much stuff there. The sidebar/footer should really have most of those, and only a few, critical links stay to related but unlinked articles. Ravensfire (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dang it! Lost an entire post I had typed up. Grrrr. I've removed a few more entries from the list, based on the sidebar/footer. I also removed a few entries (Economics, Business) that are related but in a really, really general way. I was actually surprised that Economics wasn't linked anywhere in the article. Various subtopics of it, yup, but the main article? Surprising! Hmmm, I wonder if there's a List of influential people or works for economics? That might be helpful to link to, rather than a long list of individual works/people. Ravensfire (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the see also is small enough now, reducing it anymore might actually be unhelpful at this point. I consolidated the columns making it neater and more readable. Financestudent (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Perspectives on capitalism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LK (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article. However, I have three major concerns.

Scope of article

My first major concern is about the concept and scope of this article. The article does not make clear exactly what forms a 'perspective on capitalism'. It also does not provide sources discussing perspectives on capitalism, and books/scholarly articles discussing various perspectives on capitalism. This gives the impression that the article could arguably be considered largely synthesis. For example, I can understand that Marxists have a perspective on capitalism (i.e. it will be superceded), but how exactly is Keynesian economics or supply side economics a 'perspective on capitalism'? Has anyone described them as such? My main concern is that this article reads a lot like an excerpt from the History of Economic Thought article or the Schools of economic thought article, with no clear criteria of what is being excerpted or why. Providing sources that discuss different perspectives on capitalism (and amending the article to follow such sources), would go a long way towards alleviating this concern.

Inclusion criteria

My second major concern is related to the first, in that since no sources are provided discussing perspectives on capitalism, there is no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria. For example, should 'Austrian economics', a heterodox and fringe school of thought be included? Should the German historical school, be included? Why not the Stockholm school? Why are Georgist and Schumpeterian perpectives (hugely popular in their day) excluded? What about the increasingly popular post Keynesians? Are they also a perspective on capitalism? With a few books or scholarly articles discussing this issue, we can use the criteria of notability, and ask, "are these schools of thought notable enough to be significantly discussed in scholarly works on this topic?"

Organization

My third major concern is about the general organization of the article. The most obvious problem is the lead. The lead should not be overly long, and should summarize all major topics in the body with proportionate weight, and should not discuss any ideas that are not significantly discussed in the body of the article itself. I'm afraid the lead fails all three of these criteria. Some parts of the lead would likely be better used as part of a first section for the body of the article. Given that the topic of the article itself is unclear, the first section of the article should start with a discussion and history of the scope and topic of the article. In this case, it would be appropriate to have a brief discussion of the literature, and how perspectives on capitalism have evolved over time.

I'ld like to see these issues addressed before making a decision about the GA nomination.

Reviewer: LK (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been more than a week with no response, so I'm going to close this submission for GA status. LK (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This article needs sections on development economics and labor economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.186.64 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maoist and Confucian Perspectives on Capitalism

The absence of a tab on the Moaist or Confucian perspective on capital is glaring, given 1/4th of humanity lived with it. Would appreciate the help of an expert in the field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China#Economics

I noticed that no one has talked about this article since 2010, nearly a decade ago. It seems dead. Futher, the article itself seems disjointed without a summary providing an overview of the different perspectives on capitalism with their main themes, and instead feel like a list of topics. I could start to work on a proper summary?(Mshara1 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC))