Talk:Critique of political economy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Critique of political economy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 1 year

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political / Continental / Modern Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Continental philosophy Modern philosophy

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Hi!

I would be happy to discuss why you have reverted my edit, but to vaguely claim that some supposed edits are challenged, while previously having provided a edit which strictly speaking provides the user with misinformation does not seem very constructive in my humble opinion. Hence, I think it would be good for both of us if you clearly stated your case here.

I can start in stating that I deem parts of your edit as either very severe misunderstandings (or in the worst case, intentional disinformation) regarding what these authors actually claim.

I deem some of the changes you did to the language to be of worth. Thanks very much for that!

@SPECIFICO Pauloroboto (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for you to self-publish your personal views. Numerous editors have tried to help you conform to the policies and guidelines of this site. You failed to adjust your behavior. Instead, you have gone to site-wide noticeboards with complaints, blaming your grievances on everything except your own behavior. Editors at those boards have joined the others telling you that in order to contribute constructively you need to follow our policies and engage collaboratively with other editors.

You could very well have been banned in your recent visit to ANI, but nobody cared enough to press the issue. If you continue to disrupt these articles and accuse other editors of misconduct, you will eventually be banned. Don't go in that direction. Stand back and reread all the feedback you've gotten and take some time to absorb what you've been told over and over by many editors. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that your message above continues the personal attacks you vented at ANI in your recently rejected complaint there. I'd advise you to stop personalizing your frustrations on this site. Any personal complaints can be posted on user talk or the appropriate noticeboards. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for your reply.

I am sad to note that you refuse to state the case for your revert of my edit but prefer, as I previously mentioned, to rather go besides the point in question.

This leaves me with options which are sub optimal. Either I continue to improve the article without your comment. Which often leads to that we end up here again. My other option is that I leave faulty information which does not in fact correspond with the cited sources on the internet. Neither seems very good to me, but one seems more unethical. So I would like to again urge you to state case for your revert so that I can improve the article. You likely see something in my edit that I don't see, so please spell it out.

I will not address the claims of yours that other editors can see are false. I have no interest in project I have gotten some amount of critique from ANI, which I have noted. But I am, as you know not the only one here who has been told to back off by ANI... ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340.)

Further: I find it interesting that you're able to interpret what I have written to you as a personal attack. (If I was interested in some ad hominem type of "discussion" I think I would prefer some other platform than wikipedia which is something I think that you may understand.) I will however note that you have previously compared social systems and the critique of them to a "critique of the human elbow", and that's for sure something that makes someone a bit speechless, but I have nothing against you as a person. I do not even know you, so how could I?

I would recommend that you check out the WP:ROWN and state your case here.

Have a good day! // Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested review of this page for copyright infringements. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed that on the sidebar, some works I have never heard of are listed alongside the works of Marx and Engels. These works are titled "Time, Labor, and Social Domination" and "Disassembling Capital." Neither work has a Wikipedia page for it, and only one of the works' authors is listed under "people": "Nicole Pepperell," who also has no Wikipedia page. I am not sure if it is appropriate for these works to be listed alongside foundational texts in the Marxian critique of political economy, as they are obscure works with equally obscure authors. I suspect that there may not have been the greatest of motivations behind adding them in the first place, but I am not sure whether it is appropriate to remove them either. Mbarcy (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a disruptive editor on this page last year, and this may have been some of their contributions. I suggest removal. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]