Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Task interests[edit]

byelf2007's interests[edit]

Aggregate demand. User:byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

Metallurgist's interests[edit]

I just do what I can. I tried working on Gold standard. I did put a nice criticism on the WHO's ranking of healthcare systems, altho thats the frontier of our territory. Im looking at Phillips curve now.

Protez's interests[edit]


Regushee's interests[edit]

It seems as though this project was begun in an attempt to give a positive influence on some articles that were being written with a negative POV; I am willing to contribute towards a positive influence of articles under review. I also prefer, as a personal preference, the term Free Market Economy instead of Capitalism, but I realize that Capitalism is more recognizable. (Regushee (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

srich32977's interests[edit]

No turf -- I shall simply WP:Gnome about. First priority, put in the No-bulls for Hayek and Krugman. Second, recruiting.--S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yakushima's interests[edit]

Having "turf", as I understand the term, is tantamount to WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a commons. How about term that reflects that fact? Yakushima (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I hardly saw the term "turf" as implying ownership of particular articles. Posting the term "turf" here did not fall within any of the ownership warning signs or indicators. Rather, setting up tasks for a Project is a normal and expected process. In any case, I've modified the term.(Perhaps stewardship would have been a better term.) Yakushima, I ask that you do the necessary edit for this particular section because I do not want to be seen as refactoring your comments. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Other issues[edit]

Recognize on front page State vs. free market?[edit]

- Better make that distinction so that confused lefties who think Hayek, Mises, Krugman, Rothbard et al are state capitalists won't be confused. Also inevitably some state capitalists will show up and might as well acknowledge they exist. Don't know what "No-bulls" means. CarolMooreDC 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC) -

No-bull is a bad pun for Nobel.--S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Austrian everywhere?[edit]

The list of econ topics mentioned as candidates for added discussion in Austrian terms is quite long. If you're going to discuss capitalism from a neutral point of view -- an announced objective of the project -- why wouldn't you give equal weight to including Marxist perspectives on capitalism? Certainly, the fact that one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world is run by avowed Marxists would suggest the Marxist perspective on capitalism is a good long way from dead. Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ? Yakushima (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the length of the list, I think it is appropriate to give weight to the Austrians regardless of the fact that Marxists are in charge in China. Saying that Marxism should be given weight within the Capitalism project is akin to saying that each WikiProject religion project should give weight to counter or other religions. That is, should WikiProject:Brahaminism editors give weight to Shaminism perspectives as well? No. Editors interested in Marxism (or Shaminism or Brahaminism) are certainly welcome to develop a WikiProject:Marxism. --S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Bzzt: bad analogy. The article on one religion might include NPOV views of that religion as seen from other religions, where they are relevant to the topic. But capitalism has been looked at from every economic, political (and for that matter, religious) point of view, and those views should be given due weight. To imagine that the Marxist view of capitalism is utterly irrelevant is to pretend that there was no history-shaping ideological and geopolitical clash in the previous century. That won't wash. Yakushima (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, I'm not talking about "giving weight", but about giving due weight. If you're unfamiliar with the guidelines and policies on this, see WP:UNDUE. Yakushima (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I added those topics because they are within the scope of this article and I'm not the only one in this group. You're welcome to add topics if you join this group. Also, it's worth mentioning that Austrian School is essentially the "Capitalist school of economics" and that there's a serious lack of its interpretations on economic topics on this site. Finally, I request that you refrain from using this discussion page until you are a member. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2011

───────────────────────── Editors, please note that IAW Talk Page Guidelines any user may add to talk pages. Discussion guidelines apply to articles and projects. --S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Austrian School is essentially the "Capitalist school of economics"" -- sorry, but that's very POV.
Milton Friedman -- is he not in the "Capitalist school of economics"? He was not an Austrian - actually, he said himself that his basic conceptual toolkit (as with all other mainstream economists of his time) derived from Keynesian econ. (See his notorious "we're all Keynesians now, but none of us are" equivocation). Friedman also said that, for the most part, the New Deal was justified as a case of when "the short run deserved to dominate." [1]. I don't believe that's the Hayekian view (although Hayek did say in The Road to Serfdom that a basic social safety net -- including universal health insurance--was necessary, so there were certainly parts of the New Deal he had little problem with.)
Joseph Schumpeter (despite being Austrian by birth, and despite having some Austrian-school leanings) was not, strictly speaking, Austrian. Outside of the Austrian school, it's hard to find a more ardent cheerleader for capitalism than Schumpeter -- nor one more distressed and depressed by the prospect of socialism.
Would you say that neither Friedman nor Schumpeter is in "the Capitalist school of economics"?
For that matter, Keynes (an insurance company executive for much of his career, as opposed to Hayek, who was always an academic) thought the basic point of his strategy of deficit-spending during recessions (to be balanced by fiscal conservatism in boom times) was to save capitalism from its own very exceptional and occasional failings -- and, if necessary, to save it from Bolshevism, which he intensely despised. I would class Keynes in the "capitalist school of economics" (if there is such a thing), along with Friedman and Schumpeter, since they all saw the free market and entrepreneurialism as the lifeblood of modern economies, and simply differed in details of how and where government should offset the failings of markets.
Please don't tell me that your interpretation of "capitalist economics" is "total laissez-faire." That, I'm afraid, is a view of that matter that must be treated under WP:FRINGE. Not even Hayek subscribed to it. I think you're left with von Mises. Maybe. Yakushima (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Google Scholar on "capitalist school of economics": zero hits. Just in case you're wondering why the link is red after all these years. Yakushima (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Yakushima's concern at the top of this thread. This WikiProject seems far more concerned about Austrian economics than capitalism. BigK HeX (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"Austrian School is essentially the "Capitalist school of economics"" is one editor's comment. It is not and should not be incorporated into the Project goals, scope, etc. True, the AS is overweighted in terms of open tasks, but that listing is certainly subject to adjustment and improvement as the Project matures. Similarly, the Project needs work to identify the best scope of the Project.--S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ?"

First of all, the bit about a "casual observer" is humorous to me. Are they the standard we set for ourselves, or should we be more concerned with the views of people who are actually knowledgeable and passionate about wikipedia?

Anyway, anyone who's a part of this project can create open tasks. So, essentially, the complaint here is "There's this one guy (who happened to start this group, so I guess he likes improving wikipedia) who made a list of a bunch of articles s/he wants [more or some] Austrian perspective on. Therefore, this group appears to amount to little more than an Austrian School group...and I won't create any open tasks so it can stay that way" Actually, this is a group concerning itself with capitalism. So, you could create a task to improve the coverage on the free-market roads page if you wanted to (and many more). Just because I want to cover AS in a bunch of articles doesn't mean "this group = Austrian". Perhaps someone will include a list of 100 capitalism topics they want more Marxian perspective on (and I won't complain, although someone by the same reasoning could cry "This is a Marxism group!" and revel in their lack of creating tasks--seriously, if you don't like how many AS tasks there are, add some non-AS tasks).

At this point, someone might point out that AS does not equal capitalism. The reason why AS needs to be a focus of this group is because AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics. I'm NOT saying "capitalism = laissez-faire". However, AS is basically advocacy of capitalism in its purest form. Therefore, it is important to a project that wants to improve coverage of capitalism on this site to improve coverage of AS on economic topics because that is essentially just improving the coverage of capitalism on this site (the goal includes "related topics", which includes most economic topics). This is akin to focusing on Marx's theories for a socialism wikiproject.

"But capitalism has been looked at from every economic, political (and for that matter, religious) point of view, and those views should be given due weight."

So go ahead and add the Marxism tasks. It's not like I'd have a problem with that.

"Milton Friedman -- is he not in the "Capitalist school of economics"? "

The capitalism page says "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit". Therefore, in it's purest form, we'd have freedom of currencies and banking. Friedman doesn't want laissez-faire. While Friedman can be called a capitalist, my point is that it's important for us to represent those who advocate the purest form of what this group is concerned with. And since basically any economic topic would fall under the scope of this project, you can go ahead and add 100 tasks concerning Monetarism.

Finally, it's natural for wikiprojects to focus on tasks which would generally add more coverage for things that exemplify the views of those involved. There's nothing wrong with adding content to wikipedia, and I hardly see how a capitalism wikiproject being disproportionately focused on AS means it is no longer a capitalism wikiproject--if you don't like how it is, add more tasks. User:byelf2007 (talk) 16 September 2011

byelf writes:
"AS is basically advocacy of capitalism in its purest form."
Ah, some progress at last: you say AS is advocacy. If it were a school of economics (not to speak of this supposed "capitalist school of economics"), it would go wherever theory, observation and experiment actually led its researchers, regardless of where it led -- whether toward or away from laissez-faire.
If we accepted your characterization, we would need to treat AS as a political tendency. Fine with me.
Now comes the part with the logical fallacy:
"Therefore, it is important to a project that wants to improve coverage of capitalism on this site to improve coverage of AS on economic topics because that is essentially just improving the coverage of capitalism on this site."
No, it would only be important to improve coverage of AS up to a point, past which you would be giving AS WP:UNDUE weight. You might want to (re-?)familiarize yourself with that part of WP:NPOV policy. You're also assuming that AS coverage is, on balance, inadequate now. If I had to bet, I'd say the quite the opposite: that there are far more business, political and economic articles on Wikipedia that have long since exceeded the WP:UNDUE point with AS than are currently falling short of the right amount of coverage (although those articles undoubtedly exist as well). Yakushima (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
On AS as advocacy: I said "basically". My point is only that if you adhere to AS, then you basically think the free market will generally give you the best economy.

On undue: You provide no arguments here--only assertions. You even say "if I had to bet" instead of "I think". Economics articles are within the scope of the project. You'll also note that "liquidity trap" has no criticism section. There are people out there that think it doesn't exist. Should we not allow criticism of the liquidity trap?

Also, you said you're fine with there being an AS wikiproject, and yet you say "You're also assuming that AS coverage is, on balance, inadequate now." So what would this AS wikiproject do exactly? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Scope of Project[edit]

From WP:PROJGUIDE: "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there may develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed." and "To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally."

User:Yakushima's recent edits do not comport with these guidelines. Perhaps later, when the project is more mature, his goals or proposed expansion of the project can be incorporated (with the consensus of Project members), but for now I am deleting Yakushima's edits as unhelpful. --S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing -- please discuss on this page[edit]

Editors (and members in particular) are requested to discuss Project related issues on this Discussion page. Raising Project related issues or concerns outside of this page (for example, here: [2]) does not foster collaboration or consensus. --S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If editing within a project has been tendentious so far, seeking help outside the project (as I did) is hardly inappropriate. And editing within the project has been tendentious so far. Yakushima (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I am seeking to avoid the tendentious editing that has plagued some of these economics articles. (And if my remarks or edits are not helpful, please let me know and describe how.) In this particular issue, I have no objection to going outside to solicit opinions, but WP:POLICY asks for appropriate notification when such solicitation is undertaken. If there was a deliberate failure to give notification -- which could give rise to a canvasing issue -- such a failure would be another example of tendentious editing. I hope my posting on the other page adequately lets other editors know that this is the best page on which to work on consensus. --S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following comment has been copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Wikipedia:WikiProject Capitalism:

"Seems to have been formed initially for POV-pushing of Austrian School economics. Seeking ideas about how to cultivate less POV-driven contributions and more awareness of what constitutes WP:UNDUE treatment. Yakushima (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)"

As Yakushima has raised the concern, editors and members are encouraged to discuss the issue here.--S. Rich (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Yakushima raising the point there is likely helpful for a fledgling project. It does appear as though this project is an attempt to gather folks who feel that certain ideologies are underrepresented on Wikipedia, and motivate the correction of that perceived underrepresentation. Getting perspective from those who have a more birds-eye view of projects generally seems like it should be helpful.
For myself, I don't know if such a project is appropriate or not. I might misunderstand the nature of the project, of course. I do know that most of the tasks suggested are on economics-oriented articles, which makes me think that the Economics Wikiproject should be good enough, unless the concern is that there won't be enough fellow-travelers there. As an example, consider WikiProject Socialism. They seem to be appropriate (to me) as a separate Wikiproject because they concentrate on articles particularly about socialism, rather than trying to make sure the socialist perspective is well-represented in economics articles. So, one wonders where this project is going, and if it will be helpful to Wikipedia. The natural concern (hopefully unfounded) is that it's an organizational platform for POV edit wars, where the "esprit de corps" is, to an outside observer, commitment to promoting an ideology. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
My recent edits have focused on two issues: 1. These edits [3] and [4] were WP:POINTY and WP:POV'd. (Would it have been appropriate to make similar edits to the Marxism or Socialism Projects?) 2. The scope of this project needs refinement. In looking at the Economics Project, I see it started off in 2005/2007 to include Business and Economics. Since then Business has developed its own project and we also have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance (plus the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment. Socialism and Marxism can be described as sister projects to Economics, as can Finance. Capitalism can be described as a sister/related project to Econ, Libertarianism, and other projects. Again, the scope needs refining. Please don't besmirch this new project with POV tagging. The Project needs constructive edits. And as it develops it can be added as a related Project to other Projects. --S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There are sister projects to the economics Wikiproject, sure. I participate (not a lot these days) in both the economics and game theory wikiprojects which have a good bit of overlap. But there are plenty of economics articles which aren't game theory and vice-versa. Most modern economics is about capitalist economics, and most of the interest I've seen here so far is focused on articles within the purview of the economics project. So...I guess I don't see the point. Anyway, I'll revert to lurking status. I'm certainly interested in capitalism, of course. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with "opponents and proponents". I'm also fine with expanding Marxian perspectives on issues relating to capitalism, which includes most economic topics. However, I'm not sure that just pasting in "Marxian" where I made a list specifically for AS is appropriate (unless they really intend to do those tasks and they just happened to want to do each one on the list). Example: an article on a financial crisis topic might have a few paragraphs of Marxian perspective, but none for AS. User:byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

Yes, POV-pushing[edit]

Cretog writes: "It does appear as though this project is an attempt to gather folks who feel that certain ideologies are underrepresented on Wikipedia ...." -- yes, they feel that way. But what's the objective reality? Wikipedia was co-founded by an Objectivist, as I'm sure you all know. Wikipedia attracts (or rather, fails to repel ;-) the tech-savvy. That's a demographic within which Libertarianism has historically been, if anything, significantly overrepresented.

I became aware of this Capitalism WikiProject starting with this curious edit [5] to paradox of toil, an article which, as I left it, seems to me to be, if anything, leaning a bit Austrian by virtue (?) of heavily referencing an economist Casey Mulligan who (as you can see from the red link) perhaps falls somewhat short of WP notability, at least compared to certain others who have written on this subject. Please note the sneering and dismissive edit summary. Then note the provenance of the edit: byelf. And then note what author cited (Gauti Eggertsson) on the deleted sentence actually says in his abstract:

"The paradox of toil is tightly connected to the Keynesian idea of the paradox of thrift. Both are examples of a fallacy of composition."

The wording byelf deleted as "B.S." was hardly more than an abridgement of a statement in the source cited -- and since byelf didn't bother to make a clarifying change (as one ought to, in adhering to WP:PRESERVE), well ... I think this is a pretty clear-cut case of tendentious editing -- moreover, done without even checking the source cited.

Had the matter been left there, I wouldn't be here. In fact, I'd forgotten all about this "paradox of toil" incident. But no, I get this, from Rich: [6], who can't quite seem to quite get it straight in two tries [7] leaving me wondering why I was being fingered for ... what? ... vandalizing somebody's talk page? One that I'd never even edited? Finally, some clarification, from Rich: [8]. And that comment leads me back to a comment I'd made to byelf about edits to paradox of toil, here [9] in which I'd restored a discussion on byelf's Talk page that I felt hadn't concluded yet. I'm still mystified as to why byelf deleted it -- the only possible reason I can think of is that the content of my comment embarrassed byelf's editing attempt on paradox of toil. After, "I deleted it because, alone among all classes of Wikipedia pages, I WP:OWN my own Talk page"? "I deleted it because I can?" OK, then why not all the others too? Permission isn't ipso facto a reason.

Needless to say, I started wondering: "Just what kind of editors am I dealing with here?" And, scrolling down on Belf's talk page, I discover that Byelf has sent out a number of postings to talk pages entitled "You are cordially invited to save the world" -- and a link to WikiProject Capitalism, which on that date [10] has exactly one line that might suggest to anyone that anybody might be invited to criticize Austrian School economics under the rubric of the Project. From that point onward, the Project's Austrian weighting only grew.

So what are we to conclude? That Byelf hopes to use Wikipedia to save the world through promotion of Austrian economics? Not least by roping in a bunch of other Austrians on Wikipedia?

Ya think?

AGF only goes so far.

Now, Byelf disclaimed (when asked [11]) that there was any WP:CANVAS violation going on with these invitations to "save the world." But interestingly, the invitations have gone out to

  • a "capitalist" and "conservative" User:Regushee
  • another editor,User:Metallurgist who claims to be able to "fairly represent" the Austrian view on a Gold standard dispute, but who then says that the Keynesian contributions are nonsense and that Murray Rothbard refuted them solidly [12].
  • to User:Protez, who "adheres" to the Austrian School.

And, except for Rich, that's about it, from what I gather.

Do we detect a pattern yet? Let's look at who didn't get invited (but instead, got slightly harassed with error-riddled wikilawyering from Rich.) Byelf didn't invite me, despite ample evidence that I had an interest in economics. Rich didn't invite me either, and he can hardly be considered to be unaware of my existence or interests, under the circumstances. Why no invite? Hm, I guess it's because I'm definitely not a treehouse club member in this supposed "capitalist school of economics" that byelf seems to think exists, and around which adherents are clustering on this WikiProject. Funny, the capitalist school of economics wikilink is still red. Could it be because of this? [13]

WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV. WP:FRINGE. WP:OWN. WP:CANVAS. Time for review, I think. You guys want an Austrian School WikiProject? Fine. But claiming to represent The Truth(tm) about Capitalism, and what it really is? The better to save the world? Not on Wikipedia. Yakushima (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"I became aware of this Capitalism WikiProject starting with this curious edit" Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

I'm confused. This edit occurred back in July. ?You're only off by a couple of months? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

READ WHAT I WROTE. I said it "started" there. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you wrote "I became aware of this Capitalism WikiProject starting with this curious edit". Is any comment necessary? What's this "it"? My supposed POV-pushing? So why did you say "I became aware of this Capitalism wikiproject..."? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

"an article which, as I left it, seems to me to be, if anything, leaning a bit Austrian by virtue (?) of heavily referencing an economist Casey Mulligan who (as you can see from the red link) perhaps falls somewhat short of WP notability, at least compared to certain others who have written on this subject."

Did I include the Mulligan stuff? Nope. So, I'm not sure what your point is. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

My point is: if you think I'm just solidly anti-Austrian and that's all that's motivating my comments here, well, why am I giving (if anything) slightly more weight to Austrian-leaning views in an article you edited with a huffy edit summary, adding nothing? Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said you were "solidly anti-Austrian". What you HAVE done is tried to associate me with edits I had no part of. What other possible reason could you have for talking about how the paradox of toil article was AS leaning? You said: "of heavily referencing an economist Casey Mulligan who (as you can see from the red link) perhaps falls somewhat short of WP notability, at least compared to certain others who have written on this subject. Please note the sneering and dismissive edit summary. Then note the provenance of the edit: byelf. " So you go from talking about how lame the article was to "Please note the sneering and dismissive edit summary. Then note the provenance of the edit: byelf" without any transition whatsoever, as if I'm responsible for the state of the article before I ever edited it.

And now that we're on this subject (still not sure how it's relevant), the article began (prior to my edit):

"The paradox of toil is the economic hypothesis that employment will continue to shrink when "the short-term nominal interest rate is zero and there are deflationary pressures and output contraction". This is advanced as a case of the fallacy of composition."

Did I screw up the edit? I guess so. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

You didn't just "screw up an edit." You left an ignorant insult. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean "it's advanced as BS?" I'm not insulting anyone there. The way it was written, it was implying that, essentially, the paradox of toil concept is advanced by its proponents as BS--as a logical fallacy. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Does this prove that there's an Austrian School conspiracy here? Nope. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

I didn't offer it a proof of any conspiracy. I offered it as evidence of tendentious editing on your part. READ WHAT I WROTE. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
So what if it was tendentious? Every wikipedia edit advances a point of view--"this is a good edit." If you're arguing that my edit was meant to diminish Keynesianism consider that ONE- it has nothing to do with this wikiproject (although if you want to make the case that I should have done the edit differently, I've already conceded that) and TWO- that the edit helped the article by eliminating a confusing sentence. After the edit, the article began with:

"The paradox of toil is the economic hypothesis that employment will continue to shrink when "the short-term nominal interest rate is zero and there are deflationary pressures and output contraction". Put simply, when a recessionary economy is up against the zero bound, having more people seeking work - at lower wages if necessary - can actually reduce the number of jobs."

There's nothing confusing about that (only a lack of detail, which already existed because the part I took out muddled the article).

You're basically arguing that because I made a bad edit, this wikiproject has problems. These are entirely different issues. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

"I'm still mystified as to why byelf deleted it -- the only possible reason I can think of is that the content of my comment embarrassed byelf's editing attempt on paradox of toil." Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

Obviously, it's because S. Rich told me I could and that your edit was improper. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Why was it improper? I felt the conversation hadn't concluded. You just decided to end it -- by deleting what I wrote? Can you show me Rich's reasoning for why it was "improper"? Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Ask him. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

.... (possibly) S. Rich gave me bad advice and I chose to listen, or (at the very worst) that I needlessly removed another person's contribution because I am a douche bag. So how do we get from there to AS conspiracy?

We don't get there. I'm not accusing anyone of "AS conspiracy". I'm accusing you of POV-pushing. Nobody else. Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011
How? Was the AS list (which doesn't exist anymore) not within the scope of the article? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

"Needless to say, I started wondering: "Just what kind of editors am I dealing with here?" And, scrolling down on Belf's talk page, I discover that Byelf has sent out a number of postings to talk pages entitled "You are cordially invited to save the world" -- and a link to WikiProject Capitalism" Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

You know what's funny? That in the year 2011 there was no wikiproject for capitalism. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Gosh, I guess that must be because nobody has ever heard of the subject, it's underpromoted, there was never a Reagan Revolution, Milton Friedman never had a popular TV series, hundreds of millions of books have never been sold. Poor little capitalism. So neglected. Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011
I don't think sarcasm is productive. Anyway, I said that it's a problem that there was no wikiproject for capitalism after this site has been active for years and your response is "So what if this website didn't have a wikiproject for capitalism? It's gotten a lot of coverage throughout history." So what? Is it worthy of being a wikiproject?--that's all that matters. I think we need one and I added goals within the scope of the project. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Here's a better theory: it never got much interest because it's been done to death and represents the mainstream economic status quo of societies almost everywhere in the world. Maybe that's why the Capitalism Portal on Wikipedia

is moribund. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Here's a better theory"? All I said was there are people that would like a capitalism wikiproject (I'm not the only member). And let's say your theory applies to most wikipedians. What of it? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Naturally, some people might feel like this is pretty lame, so they go out and get some people they think will be interested in the project to join so that we get a great website. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Wikipedia is not your website. WP:NOTWEBHOST Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Where's your argument? How, in your view, did I violate this? Linking to WP alone doesn't cut it. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Did I say "You are cordially invited to be a part of an Austrian School conspiracy to doom wikipedia to the status of libertarian schlock?" User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

The question is, why did you not say "You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Capitalism, devoted to improving articles relevant to capitalism from various points of view"? Especially if that was your intent? Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Because I thought it was cute. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

"which on that date [14] has exactly one line that might suggest to anyone that anybody might be invited to criticize Austrian School economics under the rubric of the Project." Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The goals of the project include allowing people to get more coverage of criticisms of AS, therefore, we have AS conspiracy. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

A conspiracy is a group of people with an agenda. So far, I'm only accusing you of something with pretty obvious evidence just about everywhere -- on your talk page, in your edits, on this talk page, and on the Project page and your edits to it: of POV-pushing AS. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
So your argument is that I'm a POV pusher. That's a whole different issue than how anyone has pushed POV on this wikiproject. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

So because the goal of the project isn't "destroy Keynesianism", it proves that that's exactly what we're trying to do? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

You really need to brush up: logical fallacy. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what your argument is. "exactly one line"? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Was I supposed to write "Oh, by the way guys, you are totally super encouraged to promote Keynesianism via this wikiproject" in order to convince you that this isn't AS conspiracy? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

You really, really need to brush up: logical fallacy Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what your argument is. "exactly one line"? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

" From that point onward, the Project's Austrian weighting only grew. So what are we to conclude? That Byelf hopes to use Wikipedia to save the world through promotion of Austrian economics? Not least by roping in a bunch of other Austrians on Wikipedia? Ya think?" " Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

So it's a problem that I added a bunch of articles where I thought AS needs more coverage? So what? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

When starting a WikiProject, you should make all who might have something to add feel welcome. Overweighting toward an ideology (AS is "advocacy of capitalism in its purest form", you say) is definitely getting off on the wrong foot. Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011
How the hell am I supposed to know who all who might have something to add are? And what is your standard for overweighting? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

It's within the scope of the project (economics). And ANYONE is able to add tasks. After you added "Marxism, Socialism, and Anarchism" to the list, I decided to change it to "Create/expand criticisms/debate/interpretation sections for:" So why didn't I just write that from the start? It's because most of those pages have Keynesian and/or Monetarist and/or Marxist interpretations, but no AS ones (or AS in generally much shorter). User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Shall we go article by article?
  • 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence - Austrian & Marxist perspectives approximately equal
  • AD-AS model - one Classical econ ref, no Marxist perspective, not much reason because neither is in their theoretical framework, AFAIK
  • AD-IA model - nothing Marxist or Austrian. Reasons? Ditto.
  • Aggregate demand - nothing Austrian, overlong, uncited Marxian critique probably UNDUE
  • Aggregate supply - nothing Austrian, nothing Marxist either, not clear why you'd have either
  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - pretty obvious that Austrian is getting due weight here [15], esp. with the coverage of Reason's petition drive. No Marxist perspective -- no obvious leftist perspective at all. (Unless you think Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz are leftists.)
  • Business cycle - a whole section of Austrian, about equal to Marxist and Georgist in weight.
  • Cartel - longest section is about the unsustainability of cartels, which I doubt any Austrian would disagree with [16]
  • Causes of the late-2000s financial crisis - cites Glenn Beck (!) and the von Mises Institute (the latter in trying to support a claim that there was an oil price bubble in that period - despite no evidence of hoarding, a prerequisite for any bubble in commodities.)
  • Causes of the late-2000s recession - probably a textbook case of WP:UNDUE emphasis on Austrian
  • Causes of the United States housing bubble - More than half a paragraph summarizing position of the Mises institute; nothing from any distinctly leftist position
  • Consumption function - little more than a definition; the closest thing to Austrian representation is a mention of the permanent income hypothesis; not clear why you'd bother to add any specifically Austrian perspective -- I doubt there is one.

OK, I'm tired of this. So far, I just don't see some tragic underrepresentation of AS. A bunch of terms from various branches of Keynesianism might not even have any commentary from Austrians. Not least because they probably Keynesians and Austrians probably don't have any significant points of difference over most terms. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ONE- this is a selective list. TWO-

Important: equality with other unpopular school of economics isn't all that counts--one sentence just ain't enough. Your argument is "Oh, well Marxism got shafted, too". Does that mean we aren't supposed to add AS content? If you think the list of AS edits is bad because of a skew to AS, again, I've already changed that, and I still don't see any evidence that that's a problem as long as it's within the scope. It's also worth mentioning that most of those you listed have either no or very little AS. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

So I happened to be interested in adding coverage to AS. So what? Anyone else could've added 100 tasks for Marxian interpretations. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

From among those you invited? Uh huh. Right. I would expect that. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
So what? My point is that it could have happened. ONE- Is your argument now that it's bad if a wikiproject group has people who generally want the same tasks completed? TWO- So why not just add the tasks you want? You're telling me not to have the tasks I want even though they're within scope, and you're not adding any? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Your argument is essentially that the only person making several contributions to the project page is interested in adding coverage to AS. So this whole project (which anyone can join and change the tasks of) is an AS conspiracy because there isn't enough participation? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Again, the "conspiracy" claim is over the top. I'm accusing you (nobody else) of POV-pushing. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What was I supposed to do? Send out 1,000 invites? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Four straddling the political spectrum would have cleared you of any claims of POV-pushing. Instead, from thousands of possible editors, you chose Austrians. Yakushima (talk)
Not all of the people I invited are Austrians, and I doubt I invited every Austrian. Also, why is who I picked a problem? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

I decided to invite people who I thought would be interested in a capitalism wikiproject. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Marxists wouldn't be? Keynesians wouldn't be? Monetarists wouldn't be? Sociologists wouldn't be? Political scientists wouldn't be? People matching these descriptions have written on the subject of capitalism to the point of consuming entire floors of libraries. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, I only wanted to send out around 20 invites so I chose the ones that I thought would be most interested. Did I mess up? Okay, so send out a bunch of invites to the people you want--I don't have a problem with that. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

So, I generally invited people who support laissez-faire. So what? It's a pretty safe assumption that those people who generally be more interested in a project of this kind. ... I don't see how this is an issue. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

You didn't just invite people you could be pretty sure would be interested. You invited people who aligned with your POV. Please don't pretend otherwise. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no possibility of overlap here? Also, of what relevance is it that I invited people who generally share my POV? The goals and scope of the project is what counts, and anyone can join and add goals. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

I said "AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics", not "AS is also known by many people as 'the capitalist school of economics', seriously, you can look it up". User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Ah, but you said it with such great authority. Not phrased, as a true Wikipedian would require, as "many people[according to whom?] say that AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics."[citation needed] Not that you could provide a citation for that, because apparently nobody has ever said it before -- not even Austrians. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I added "essentially", which is another way of saying "basically". How is that "with such great authority". If I say "X is essentially Y" that's a pretty good tip-off that you aren't going to find "X is Y" in google. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Not sure how this gets connected to the AS conspiracy theory. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

It doesn't. Because I'm not saying there is one. I'm accusing only you of something very obvious: POV-pushing AS. Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

"Time for review, I think. You guys want an Austrian School WikiProject? Fine." Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

Here's an idea: add open tasks. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Here's a better idea: try trimming the supposed AS-needed tasks so that they don't include what amounts to a grab-bag of econ topics that you believe fail to mention AS enough (regardless of whether AS people have ever bothered to mention those topics themselves, or whether they take issue with the mainstream view on those topics.) Try working from the top down, in broad categories of articles and possible improvements in those broad categories. Not on some narrowly sectarian political agenda. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I already eliminated AS tasks and replaced them with general tasks as per your addition of Marxism/Anarchism/Socialism to the list. See? Your contribution is appreciated. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

You're complaining about how other people are running a wikiproject by saying there's a huge focus on a particular aspect of THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

That's called WP:UNDUE weight. It's good cause for complaint, last I checked. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
What's your argument that I've violated WP:UNDUE? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

You haven't raised any issues with the scope of the project or argued that the AS list wasn't within the scope. So your complaint is over what people running the project are interested in working on within the scope of the project? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Are you "running a project"? Or just an agenda? The weight of evidence, so far, is on the latter. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I said "people". Yes, people are running this project and it includes you and me (you listed yourself as a member and contributed to the tasks). User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Suppose I didn't add the AS list until today, and a few days ago someone added 100 tasks about Marxism. Would I have complained? Nope. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

A counterfactual that we can't run now, therefore proving nothing. AGF is long gone: the tendentiousness of your edits makes that amply clear. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no argument here, only assertion. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

By your rationale, you would have argued that there was a Marxian conspiracy afoot. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

No, I would have looked at who made the edits and if it was just a single person, I would have accused them of what I'm accusing you of: POV-pushing. Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if their goals were within the scope of the project? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

"But claiming to represent The Truth(tm) about Capitalism, and what it really is? The better to save the world? Not on Wikipedia." Yakushima (talk) 17 September 2011

Isn't the whole point of wikipedia to represent the truth to better the world? Um...yeah. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Nope. The goal is to put all the world's knowledge out where it's freely available. There's a difference. If you don't know know what that difference is, take the opportunity to learn.[17] Yakushima (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's a better one: User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011


There is only one way to resolve this POV issue -- to close the discussion and focus attention on improving the layout, scope, task listing, goals, etc. of the Project page. The project is open to all persons with an interest in Capitalism, regardless of their perspective. --S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope we have WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS -- the Project is about Capitalism. Editors might have their own POV about various Capitalism subjects, but as good Wikipedians they will not use the Project (or this Talk Page) for POV-pushing. Comments? --S. Rich (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The undue weight accusation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I really hope this puts this nonsense to rest:



You obviously haven't read much more than a paragraph or two of WP:UNDUE. Here's how superminority positions should be treated:
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
Where a view is in the minority, policy is quite clear:
it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view.
Now, is Austrian School a minority view? According to the Wikipedia page on the subject, its representation in economics departments is very limited indeed:
Currently, universities with a significant Austrian presence are George Mason University, Loyola University New Orleans, and Auburn University in the United States and Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala.
And there are how many universities in the world? You may believe the ratio is irrelevant. If so, trying saying that on the Talk page for WP:NPOV. Yakushima (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The question is whether or not AS = "tiny minority" and the ONLY examples provided by the WP:UNDUE page of "superminority" are "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar." You have to establish that AS is as fringe as these. What is your case? Simply asserting this applies to AS doesn't cut it. User:byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011

See also:

Whether a particular person has (or has not) been deemed to meet WP notability guidelines has no particular bearing on the question of whether the Austrian School as a general source of views is being given undue (or insufficient) weight in a given article. Just ask Rich. You seem to think his advice is worth something. Yakushima (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read it--despite the title, it goes into my arguments for why AS does not equal "superminority" than WP:UNDUE applies to. What are your responses to those arguments? User:byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011


WP:UNDUE says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views [examples included are holocaust denialism, moon landing denialism, the Earth is flat, etc.] as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."

Bzzt. You need to read further. WP:UNDUE goes on for several more paragraphs, and includes this statement:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
Yes, it says an "article" not a "wikiproject". Furthermore, "significance to the subject" is not the same as "popularity of whatever you're thinking about including". User:byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011
And this one:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Under "reliable sources" in economics, one must include the peer-reviewed literature. Among econ journals and university presses, what is the number hewing consistently to Austrian School positions such as the gold standard or abolition of central reserve banking? It's tiny. If you don't know this, you need to get out more. Yakushima (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and we decide to apply the UNDUE recommendations with respect to "superminority" views (such as moon landing denialism), not just "unpopular ones". In other words, is AS as unpopular with economists as flat earthism is among scientists? Is AS as unpopular with economists as holocaust denialism and moon landing denialism is among historians? Obviously not. You keep insisting MP:UNDUE applies to ~47% minority positions--it doesn't; it applies to ~0.01% minority positions. User:byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011

Even IF this applied to Austrian school, there is NO EVIDENCE that a long Austrian School task list would mean giving AS MUCH detail for Austrian School IN THE ARTICLES as majority viewpoints.

I never said that result was some fait accompli. You'd eventually be caught at it, for one thing. I'm intervening earlier in the process: I accused you POV-pushing and tendentious editing. And you've already supplied ample evidence of that. You don't think so? Go to arbitration with your complaint against me. Yakushima (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no desire to take this up with moderators--I don't you're being disrespectful just by making bad arguments. Your argument is that by making an AS list, you've proven that I'm a POV pusher. Suppose you're right--how does this mean the wikiproject has a problem? If you think I need to be punished by moderators somehow, this is NOT the page to express your views.

Furthermore, all I did was indicate that there needs to be more AS coverage in a lot of articles (where this is often none whatsoever). Your argument is that I'm POV-pushing because I didn't include Marxism, too? So what? Including info that should be included is not pushing POV. By that rationale, people push POV by putting Keynesian interpretation in an article but not AS. But all that means is that the article is getting more coverage that it should have. Are we supposed to not add content to an article untel we're ready to add all the content that ought to be added?. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011


Furthermore, Yakushima's argument essentially boils down to: "If you add tasks to the wikiproject, make sure you don't add a bunch of tasks that would, even for a couple weeks, before more people join, skew the tasks of the project towards a certain viewpoint, even if the viewpoint often has NO representation in the articles listed."

It's more than that, and you've read (and responded) enough to know that it's more than that, and to know that I know it's more than that. You basically did a WP:CANVAS to turn up Austrians. You didn't, for example, go to the WikiProject Economics notice boards, or notify a random sampling of project members there, nor at other relevant projects in business and finance and the social sciences. No, you picked people who gave you the best hope of pushing your ideologically narrow, I-Know-the-Really-True-Truth, "capitalist school of economics" POV. You did this when you had many, many others to choose from.
So contact someone about it and see if they think it's a problem. User:byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011
You also appeared to generate your lists "shotgun" style, putting in no apparent effort to determine whether an article was truly underweight in Austrian perspectives or whether it was simply an article about a term or concept that economists wouldn't have any differences over, much less a sectarian argument about. That's pretty consistent with your obvious goal of POV-pushing Austrian School thinking.Yakushima (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This is just your conjecture. There is an AS interpretation for everything on that list (yes, including GDP). You should research AS more before you come to this determination. In other words, can you provide evidence that there is no particularly AS viewpoint on any of those (I'm happy to supply links for each if you want). User:byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011


I ALREADY deleted most of the AS list and ALL of the remaining topics ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE. User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

Nice to know I'm having an effect, and in the direction of balance and WP:NPOV. Now: can we get rid of this silly idea of "turf"? There is no turf on Wikipedia. Read WP:OWN. Oh, I suppose you picked that word to be "cute", right? Here's my advice to you: while you're on thin ice (and POV-pushing definitely puts you on thin ice), don't get cute. Yakushima (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm on thin ice with you--there's no evidence the people who run this site have a problem with me. User:byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011

Unhelpful discussion[edit]

Much (not all, not some) of the material above is simply a rehash of minority/heterodox/mainstream/innie v. outie debate that is ongoing on other article talk pages. Please, this project is about Capitalism and most certainly not about the Austrians. The motives of each editor are being disparaged, with little effort to improve the scope, goals, or task lists. Instead, each project member is spending energy on article related subjects rather than Project improvement. It's time to WP:CLOSE this portion of the discussion and move on. --S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

With the edits to the Project page, I hope we have WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. As stated above, the Project is about Capitalism. Editors might have their own POV about various Capitalism subjects and opinions about "how much" text should be devoted to various aspects of various articles. But as good Wikipedians they will endeavor to make sure that the Project and Capitalism article pages do not suffer from WP:UNDUE problems. Comments? --S. Rich (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read in this dialog, I think the subject of the Austrians has been adequately discussed, with a reasonable level of discussion and an understandable amount of POV. I think it has come to its natural end, and recommend further discussion at a later time, if necessary(Regushee (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticisms articles[edit]

At what point does something warrant its own criticisms article? If we shouldn't have a "Criticisms of Keynesian economics" or "Criticisms of Austrian School" article, then why have any of the various criticisms articles we already have? Where's the "bright line"? User:byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

No bright line, I'm sure. My guess is that Criticisms of Socialism, Criticisms of Islam, etc. were fraught with POV, WEIGHT, WARRING issues. As Gwen has said, there is probably no surer way to stimulate another edit war than to set up a criticism article. I regret that another talk page comment of mine brought up the idea.--S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
So we're supposed to get rid of all of them? The pages you mentioned still exist. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011
Absolutely not. As mentioned, I bet those Criticism articles came about only after much tendentious editing. They are the exception, and as the exception they may break the rules but that does not justify our creating yet another criticism article. The overall policy is to avoid such articles.--S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration with WP:WikiProject Conservatism[edit]

Congratulations Capitalists on your wikiproject from your colleagues at WPConservatism! I know you're just getting setup, but I would like to propose an article collaboration between our two projects. I'm thinking a combined effort to promote an article to GA. I think it would help build esprit de corps among your members. Let me know when you're ready... – Lionel (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Affiliation with WikiProject Conservatism[edit]

I have noticed that things have slowed down a bit here. If and only if there is agreement with your membership, I'd like to propose that WPCapitalism become a workgroup of WPConservatism. This is not about ideology, but about resources. WPConservatism is a modern wikiproject with many technological innovations. We utilize automation as much as possible. We have a monthly newsletter, assessments/review dept., and an article incubator. We would be able to help out with administration and free up your members to grow WPCapitalism. Many of our members have capitalistic interests and this affiliation would expose our 70 members to WPCapitalism and vice-versa. WPCapitalism would retain all of it's pages, members, everything. WPCapitalism could end the affiliation at any time. – Lionel (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

More capitalist economists[edit]

The template Template:Capitalism appears to be missing some important capitalist economists in its section on people. I got these names from the article on Ludwig von Mises: Frédéric Bastiat, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Henry Hazlitt, Carl Menger, Jean-Baptiste Say, Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, Friedrich von Wieser.
I also wonder why John Maynard Keynes is included since his theories undermine capitalism. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Important Article in need of Critique[edit]

Hi, I am making revisions on the current stub entitled "Depleted community". Depleted communities are important to study in the area of capitalism because capitalism, or its improper practice, has been identified as one of the main causes of the creation of depleted community. These communities experience economic decline, after a period of growth, due to uneven development, which some say is an inherent part of capitalism. In researching this claim, we find that depleted community's economic decline leads to poverty and other social issues. In my revisions I will explore Capitalism's role in the creation of depleted communities, including its role in industrialization and public policy. Thus, in exploring capitalism, it is important to rectify or at least understand, the communities that have been negatively affected by it. Any constructive criticism would be appreciated by me and by this issue, which would obtain some much needed attention by this WikiProject! Thanks, Njeri Muturi (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases![edit]

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to capitalism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

  • Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism RfC[edit]

Please see this RfC re including content on the Anarcho-capitalism page re its relationship with mainstream/traditional anarchism. N-HH talk/edits 07:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Capitalism at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge into WikiProject Finance[edit]

If anyone is still active: Merging this project into the FInance project and making a task force into it is probably a good idea.

Draft:Free enterprise[edit]

A draft has been initiated for the topic of "Free enterprise", which is currently a redirect with no article of its own. Please help improve this draft so that it can be moved to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)