Talk:Feminist economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Feminist economics has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
September 30, 2012 Good article nominee Listed


Several of the diagrams are incorrectly devised. Chopped off scales do not belong in a serious article, so diagrams like seriously harm the credibility of the article. This is not because the diagram actually shows incorrect data, but because it exaggerates the point to be made, at a quick glance they do not portray the data.

The risk is that readers who would otherwise have found the article informative and reasonable might view it a dubious and POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this even a field of study/school of thought?[edit]

This article is currently classified amongst "Economic thought" in the box at the bottom of the page which includes schools of thought such as Classical, Neo-classical, Keynesian, etc. Doesn't seem as though "feminist economics" is considered as a distinct school of thought; surely it takes more than one peer-reviewed journal and a Wikipedia page to give the school the credibility it needs to be stood amongst Marx, Keynes, the Austrian School, etc? Many of the female specific issues mentioned in the introduction to the article are also covered by other fields, such as labour economics. The article even includes the statement "there is no definitive list of the principles of feminist economics". Is this really a school of thought? Can someone explain and/or condense the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is a 'Criticisms of Feminist Economics' section needed?[edit]

At first glance, this seems to be a very interesting and informative article. But I couldn't help being a bit surprised by the apparent absence of any section called 'Criticisms of Feminist Economics'. This seems a pity, as it makes the otherwise-seemingly-excellent article appear unbalanced. Or alternatively it would be a bit depressing if the absence was because there were no criticisms yet, tending to suggest that the discipline was still at the earliest stage ('First they try to ignore you') of the journey a new idea is said to have to travel towards general acceptance ('First they try to ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they condemn you, and then you win', or alternatively, in more pessimistic versions, 'and then they claim it was known all along'). However I know too little of the subject to feel competent to try to supply such a section myself, and I'm probably also temperamentally poorly suited to doing so. Can anybody else have a go? Tlhslobus (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary here. Criticism sections can actually compromise the neutrality of articles (see WP:CRIT). Criticism in this article is integrated into the specific sections and I don't think our readers would be well served by having all of the negative material in one location. If you do find reliably sourced negative material that can contribute to the improvement of the article, by all means add it. gobonobo + c 19:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the WP:CRIT link. It confirms our guidelines are against my suggestion. (I suspect the guidelines are wrong and harm this article by making it look POV, at least in my eyes, but I haven't read the discussions that led to those guidelines, and in any case this is the wrong place to try to get them changed even if I wanted to - which I don't, as I've had too many unpleasant experiences with past attempts to change other guidelines)
  • I don't know of any criticisms, I've no plans to look for any, and in any case I've already said I think I'm temperamentally unsuited to supplying them if I found them - I'm rather more comfortable adding references to Feminist economics into other Economics articles (as I've just done a few hours ago in Positive economics, see this diff), but, as a semi-retired editor who wishes he were psychologically able to quit Wikipedia entirely, I suspect I'm not particularly well-suited to doing that either (though I suspect others here might be well-suited for it).
  • Thanks again for your reply. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)