This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 13 August 2020 (Archiving 11 discussion(s) to Talk:Criticism of socialism/Archive 4) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:15, 13 August 2020 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 11 discussion(s) to Talk:Criticism of socialism/Archive 4) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of socialism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Socialism C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Politics C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | ||||
Index
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Undue focus given to criticisms from Austrian Economics
Why do Misplaced Pages editors let these dingbats put a mark of such unwarranted size on every page related to economics? Somebody trying to educate themselves on economics with wikipedia would assume that the Austrians are dominant, rather than largely ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.36.30 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe they have a more well-thought-out argument and a greater need to explain their views - typical of intellectual minorities? --dbabbitt (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. Just further evidence of how this fringe group has managed to exploit Misplaced Pages to their advantage. It may be time for ArbCom to take another look at their behaviour. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Criticisms of criticisms of socialism
Hello, after finishing reading the article there remains a question in my mind: Should we not also produce counterarguments to the criticisms given in this article? To me it seems that NPOV actually would indicate this as necessary. The way it stands, it seems that Milton Friedman's silly "socialism means inefficient first class mail delivery" argument is somehow the only opinion on the matter (and so on with many other criticisms). There is quite a good amount of respected scholars in both economics as well as political science who would disagree with that. What is the consensus, should there be a "Criticisms of Criticisms of Socialism" article or do we want to include that in this article?
Djupp (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a debating forum. Misplaced Pages already contains articles on socialism and its components that extensively detail its merits, and this article contains the critiques. That is sufficient. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your concern. However, I am not speaking of the merits of socialism but of specific critiques of some of the arguments given in this article. I still think that this criticism should be addressed in the article. If I understand it correctly, Misplaced Pages:Content_forking has the following to say on articles like this one: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." Djupp (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can't say I agree. It would be pretty difficult to find all the refutations if you didn't know the topic well. I don't think it's 'soapboxing' to centralize the information. -unsigned. 7:56 8/23/2012
- Djupp and anon are correct. An article should never contain a single point of view. Misplaced Pages allows "criticisms" articles only with the understanding that they are articles about criticisms - in other words, articles presenting the criticisms as well as objections raised against them - not articles endorsing the point of view of the critics. KS79 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Any article presenting a single point of view, without including appropriate critiques, is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
market socialism is not criticized
The section on centralized planning ends with a comment about market socialism as an alternative to traditional socialism. Would someone please write a criticism of market socialism regarding issues of centralized planning? Thanks! -- Sudozero (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- This review of the book The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study, by N. Scott Arnold seems like a good starting point. -- Sudozero (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- While I have not yet read it, F. A. Hayek's "Socialist Calculation: The Competitive 'Solution'" apparently covers this topic. It can be found as a chapter of "Individualism and Economic Order" : . -- Sudozero (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The essay that precedes the one I linked to above is "The Present State of the Debate", the second chapter in "Socialism and War" by F. A. Hayek. -- Sudozero (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 5 July 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved as requested. I also checked the history at the target, and there was nothing that needed to be retained. Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Criticisms of socialism → Criticism of socialism – Per Criticism of Misplaced Pages, Criticism of Facebook and Criticism of Google. Unreal7 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
- This one needs care, there's possibly significant history at the target which will be lost if the move simply goes ahead. The story is not clear to me, possibly just a previous cut-and-paste move and reverting of the same, but it may be more significant than that, with content from the target having been merged into this article, in which case the history needs to be preserved. Andrewa (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CONSISTENT, WP:CONCISE. Do history merge if necessary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support per WP:PLURAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Sorabino (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.