This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philoserf (talk | contribs) at 22:37, 7 December 2022 (Assessment (B): banner shell, Economics, Finance & Investment (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:37, 7 December 2022 by Philoserf (talk | contribs) (Assessment (B): banner shell, Economics, Finance & Investment (Rater))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 900 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Criticism of long cycles" is badly written
The last section of "Criticism of long cycles" is just gibberish. I recommend to delete the paragraph.09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)193.196.11.188 (talk)
- I agree. It seems to be an incoherent defence of long cycles. I've deleted it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
2022 edit - There is an arbitrary sentence at the bottom of this section - "Joseph Schumpeter, a professor at Harvard University, was among the key advocates of the existence of Kondratiev wave."
This is not relevant to this section, and it's irrelevance could bring the reader to false implications. Such as - "Oh Joseph Schumpeter must be a professor now discredited, and thus it standards as a point of criticism for K-Waves, given he was a proponent, and now is discredited, given it is listed within the criticism section".... Or "Joseph Schumpeter was a key advocate, but must have also had his criticisms, given this is listed within the criticism section"
I am assuming the sentence is meant to be taken as a possible rebuttal to a given criticism or criticism in general, however the section is not such developed to facilitate specific rebuttals.
-Also needs referencing, and more importantly specifics/relevancy of the advocations Joseph S bestowed upon K-Wave Theory, or rather it's specific points of rebuttal to a given criticism.
Deleting sentence - "Joseph Schumpeter, a professor at Harvard University, was among the key advocates of the existence of Kondratiev wave." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:986C:1300:2873:8BBA:3A5:97B4 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Removal of content corrections and references
Edward Tilley has written six 550-page, well-cited research thesis that confirm the validity of Kondratiev waves - in thirty occurrences back to 1763 BCE (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11383374/The-biggest-debt-write-offs-in-the-history-of-the-world.html). A dozen references provided by Mr. Tilley have been stricken from this record, save his graphic on birthrates, as have references to frequently recurring mature capitalisms throughout Misplaced Pages.
See similar changes at Depression (economics) and Late Capitalism to confirm that a political? agenda might be afoot and trying to rewrite legitimate economic events and research at Misplaced Pages here. Several inappropriate comments about "socialism" would seem to explain the motives of individuals responsible.
Misunderstanding how to manage maturing monetary cycles contributed to World Wars I & II. This is important subject matter to understand and explain well.
I will follow up with librarians to ensure that this does not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am responding to your comments both here and at my Talk page. (1) The contributions you made in 2017 are retrievable via the "View history" tab. No edit is destroyed. (2) According to WP:COI guidelines you should not be editing Misplaced Pages to promote your own theories and publications. (3) According to WP:NPOV, we should take a neutral tone when describing the issues. (4) This is an encyclopedia, contributions should be coherent and comprehensible. (5) Any editor has a right to edit or delete your contributions. If you are unhappy with this, you should post on a blog etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for timely response here Jack Upland (talk) 1) Thanks for this, I haven't invested the time to become proficient in wiki's CMS; 2) Kondratiev's monetary system cycle Business Cycle (misnamed here at wikipedia; business is just an actor in this use case example) theories are - his own, and shared by Professor Thompson (who carried Kondratiev's waves back to 930 AD China), Hammurabi's (Code of 1763 BCE- see Jubilee - biblical, Constantine I's Jubilee (biblical), and documented by many other notable leaders in history, philosophy, and contemporary mathematics and economics too. My "research" of monetary system cycles, documented observation scientifically - so use of the words "own theories" here is inappropriate. Without publications, you have opinions only. Since everyone has an opinion, weightings must be assigned to dissenting points of view - but neither viewpoint need to be dismissed where cited observation permits it becoming part of the discussion. Even clearly presented fact can take a little time to time to absorb - E=mc2 Mass–energy equivalence sat on a shelf for 20-years; Nicolaus Copernicus; etc. 3) Agreed - and authors should be afforded the opportunity to know that others have found their diction to be less than neutral; every possible reading of their content is not always obvious to a writer . 4) Same as 3. 5) I create blog pages and theses as well; Misplaced Pages is the source of 20%? of my research and reciprocation is important. Misplaced Pages has incredible value to humanity when it's correct and complete. The disclaimer that "anything can be deleted" is both necessary legally - and it invites political agendas, bullying, and loud voices (the mob) to ignore actual science.
Thanks Jack! I will invest the time to learn your system - and revisit my wording as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Standardised topic self-referencing, changes mid article
The article should continue referencing the topic as K-Waves, or Kondratiev Waves. Instead Long-Waves becomes used.
Apart from the first sentence, it is unclear whether Kondratiev Waves and Long-Waves are the same thing, or if Long-Waves are a sub-topic within the main topic/thesis that is Kondratiev Waves.
Example of significance: - Narrator : "Criticism of Long-Waves:" - Observer's internal monologue: "Oh, there's no criticism section of Kondratiev Waves, only his thesis sub-topic that is 'Long-waves'... Everything but long waves is uncontested."
Topic heading 'Criticism of Long-Waves' should be changed to 'Criticism of Kondratiev Waves', or Kondratiev Wave Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:986C:1300:2873:8BBA:3A5:97B4 (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Categories: