Talk:Entrepreneurship

message: Although some roots of entrepreneurship are referenced in this section, there is no mention of entrepreneurship as one of the four fundamental resources in traditional economics, (i.e., Land, Labor, Capital, and Entrepreneurship) anywhere in this article. Since this view of entrepreneurship as a resource is a major part of the modern definition and how it is connected with other resources in an economic sense, it should be included somewhere here. Since it is seen as a resource, this section could lead into how the entrepreneurship as a human phenomenon is quantified, showing the natural resource potential from a statistically, economically, and scientifically accurate perspective, which is useful and informative on this topic.  It seems placement should be in the History section, and should be included with re-write/re-organization of of that section to give a logical and progressive flow of ideas without losing the information which is already there.  Here is my proposed re-org outline for the History section:
[]Entrepreneurship should be discussed, defined, and given historical perspective (including existing citations), with the inclusion of how it is a seen as a natural resource in modern economics today (with new citations as needed). These changes should be made in such a way that introduces how entrepreneurship became recognized as a fundamental natural resource in human economic systems the world over during the 19th and 20th centuries, leading to the understanding of entrepreneurship in modern economics we have today.
Following that...
[]An Entrepreneur, as one who practices entrepreneurship, should then be enumerated with its own definition, historical usage, development (including existing citations), and then include a sub-section on 1.) {what are generally considered to be} traits of an entrepreneur (the current parts under "SkillSet" could be moved here), 2.) the relative frequency with which these traits occur in the population (Journal of Psychology citations), and 3.) the expected number and distribution of entrepreneurial talent in the world (or country, local, etc.) population;(approximately 1 in 20, Gallop Research citations), as compared by the reported numbers of entrepreneurs (in the US) by SBA, Dept of Commerce, BLS, etc.
This information is painfully lacking in this informative article on Entrepreneurship, so that is why I bring it up for discussion. I am a wikipedia editor in the Physics Portal (under ~AK (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrepreneurship as a Resource (proposed add/edit to existing History section, or other) 

message: Now, since about 2010, it has just become a buzzword and more or less means "business".-unsigned 08/26/2014
Or more accurately, it means "successful, aggressive business focused on growth and accumulating wealth, which benefits both the businessman and society". As such, it is just a political term used for the purposes of the debates surrounding the Great Recession.
I don't have a problem with an article about an ideological position, but it should make explicit that it is about an ideological position and not pretend that it is about an objective concept. For your consideration:
*http://nadiazeine.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/entrepreneur-the-buzzword/
*http://mroomi.com/entrepreneurship-the-buzzword-for-the-third-millennium/
*http://europe.microfinancefocus.com/why-entrepreneurship-may-be-the-buzzword-of-the-decade/
*http://books.google.ch/books?id=k9kW9_ynGwUC&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q&f=false
*http://books.google.ch/books?id=5M-CzgovRG4C&pg=PA128
and above all, this:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=entrepreneurship#q=entrepreneurship&geo=US&gprop=news&cmpt=q
seems to indicate that interest in the press in this term picked up around 2009, peaked around 2012 and is now on the decline. 
Now I know that political economics is all about buzzwords. But really, Wikipedia can do better than parrot this. 
For crying out loud, the Global Entrepreneurship Week is about "exposing people to the benefits of entrepreneurship" and abouot making them "participate in entrepreneurial-related activities". This is just pathetic. 
Apparently, modern "entrepreneurship research" as an academic field originates in the 1980s. As such, it would focus on the processes involved in the emergences of new businesses, and what dynamics contribute to their success or failure. 
This is not how the term is now used at all. It has now become the term for some sort of supposed virtue or desirable character trait, 
according to a paragraph which I have just removed from the page, 
:"It has assumed super importance for accelerating economic growth both in developed and developing countries. It promotes capital formation and creates wealth in country. It is hope and dreams of millions of individuals around the world. It reduces unemployment and poverty and it is a pathway to prosper."
Basically, it would appear from the above, it's the neoliberalist's term for "The Messiah". 
What this boils down to is just 19th-century capitalism, "we need aggressive businessmen with carpetbagger mentalities who are willing to take every risk play the dog-eat-dog game and we will all be ok". Maybe we will, I have no opinion on these things, but I would assume that if people were serious about these ideas, they wouldn't need to hide behind jargon all the time. 
If this was still in any way about research (as in, honest study of) on founding new businesses, you would expect the outcome to be more complex as "be an entrepreneur!". You would have to make very complicated statements on how taking risks and aiming for growth can turn out really well, but sometimes also leads to complete failure, and what (if anything) we know about the contributing factors. Instead it seems to be more or less about telling people "be like Richard Branson, be ab entrepreneur, have a manly chin, be sure to innovate and to take every possible risk with your capital and that of your funders and you will be rich and sexy". Of course nobody would buy it from me if I put it in these terms, but that's what you need jargon for, right? 
--dab (𒁳) 15:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  . 

message: Discussion area for proposed merger of Entrepreneur to Entrepreneurship.  Proposal date=August 1, 2013. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So this just happened without record? Did Jimbo do it hisself oder? 198.255.198.157 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Added a merge tag to stimulate discussion. This article is pretty thin, except for its links. Maybe together, we could make something worthwhile. Lfstevens (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Not sure what policy you are citing here regarding the number of pictures in the article (as in its current state) is violating.  Or is this just a personal feeling?  Please be more specific before again removing content which has been a part of the article(s) for some time now.  Thanks, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, WP:NOTREPOSITORY/WP:IDD.TMCk (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I guess I am still not seeing it.  Five images in a 27K+ article is hardly violating the latter; and Relevance is TOTALLY subjective.  With subjective, I usually go with the status quo of the article, which I did when fulfilling the merge request.  The articles were being viewed by over 1/8 of a million people per month for the last 90 days, and there were apparently no issues with any of those viewers.  I don't much care either way.  As far as attribution and licensing, I'll leave to those who get into dealing with such things willingly.  Thanks for the info anyway. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it matters how long image content was present but the images in question were added only about 2 weeks before someone removed them. As for the relevance there is a bit of a problem with the following part of above policy: "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:... Photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context,...".TMCk (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find any reference. Could you point me? The image license states that attribution is required. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The relevant part is: "...which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions.". I'm not sure if an attribution license is allowed but if so, the attribution should be on the file page and can also be part of the file name. See also this guideline and following bullet point:"Who took it? (Generally, this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable"Hope that helps.TMCk (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

text: BTW, for more help with image copyright you can ask questions you might have at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions board.TMCk (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but the image was not released into the public domain, but it is being used by Wikipedia only under license, which clearly states that attribution is required. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you one more link to read: WP:CREDITS. If you're still not satisfied/convinced, I urge you to go to the board I linked above and get clarification from uninvolved and knowledgeable editors.Cheers, TMCk (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my friend. That particular section of the WP maze had not been brought to my attention before. It certainly is worth looking into. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Over-illustrated" 

message: Re. recent revert: Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy section "User-created images", 1st paragraph.TMCk (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any reference. Could you point me? The image license states that attribution is required. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The relevant part is: "...which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions.". I'm not sure if an attribution license is allowed but if so, the attribution should be on the file page and can also be part of the file name. See also this guideline and following bullet point:"Who took it? (Generally, this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable"Hope that helps.TMCk (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

text: BTW, for more help with image copyright you can ask questions you might have at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions board.TMCk (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but the image was not released into the public domain, but it is being used by Wikipedia only under license, which clearly states that attribution is required. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you one more link to read: WP:CREDITS. If you're still not satisfied/convinced, I urge you to go to the board I linked above and get clarification from uninvolved and knowledgeable editors.Cheers, TMCk (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my friend. That particular section of the WP maze had not been brought to my attention before. It certainly is worth looking into. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image attribution in article space 

message: Can it be that those pushing a certain POV on this article wished to supress it? The normal practice is that the talk page moves with the article. Lycurgus (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are looking for the merger discussion from the Entrepreneur article, nothing has been removed (see this talk page's history).  There was a merger, not a page move, so no talk pages were moved.  In fact, the discussion, which was started on the wrong page, was indeed moved over here (see above sub-section).  As you can see, there was little input.  The bold merge took place after no objections were made while the proposal was listed (for almost 90 days) AND a request made for further input from Wikiproject:Business members was made.  See Merge request noticeboard for October 2013.  The talk page for Entrepreneur is archived here, per standard merger procedure.  Hope that helps, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No I certainly was not. I was referring to the talk of the article Entrepreneur which has been wiped. In fact I suspect the merge/move may have been to suppress that talk page. I've changed the thread title to make this clearer. And to be still clearer, there is a self evident suppression of any nay saying of the good of the subject of this article which was in evidence in the original article and now a fait accompli with this action. Lycurgus (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is here: Talk:Entrepreneur.  Talk pages are never merged, but they are always kept/archived, (sometimes you have to click thru the history).  An article or its talk page are never "wiped" unless the article is deleted.  GenQuest "Talk to Me" 10:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You. That's not the case in my experience. In the merges I performed I was always scrupulous to make sure that both original article's discussions were preserved and I also observed others to do the same but there's a wide variation here. 198.255.198.157 (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the talk page from the Entrepreneur article not merged with the front matter? 

message: Re your recent edit of the Entrepreneurship page, copied below.
"(cur | prev) 03:31, 25 November 2014‎ IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,501 bytes) (-763)‎ . . (→‎Recent developments: remove confusing, meaningless gibberish. This mumbo jumbo may be at best a niche, fringe idea and is not widely reported in the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship. Thanks.)"
I do not know how to start a talk page to discuss your edit. Could you do that? Entrepreneurship is a concept, which is far from stable, therefore, new inputs should be discussed. Also "Recent developments", which was the heading, is normally not widely reported.   (Unsigned comment on 17:40, 25 November 2014‎ by User: Mdpienaar)
: I agree entrepreneurship is a dynamic, ever-changing, evolving set of ideas. However, I removed the 'recent developments' because they were not well-explained. They were vague, unclear and confusing. Entrepreneurship is a difficult, complex subject, and there is no need to make it even more complicated and incomprehensible than it already is. Is there some way to  improve the clarity, readability, understanding and comprehension of the explanation of intequity? Thanks. IjonTichy  (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could not find references to "intequity" on google search, google books nor amazon books. IjonTichy  (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, it is clearly not a commonly used term, and has no place in the article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  25 November 2014: Accounting of ideas and Intequity 

message: I think you should say that one has to get very rich first so they can then be an entrepreneur. And also to get a job, any job anywhere. Pepper9798 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One definitely does not need to be rich first so they can be an entrepreneur.  Deli nk (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Try Googling "homeless entrepreneur". You may be surprised about the things that creative, enterprising people can accomplish.  Deli nk (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I not only stand by what I said, I'll add that, Woo hoo 1 or 2 or 3 among Billions worldwide will "succeed" at entrepreneurialism. Pepper9798 (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rich first 

message: Hello all. I don't really have a solution to my concern here...and am a fairly new Wikipedia editor/contributor. However, as someone who does research in the field, the definition provided for entrepreneurship is deeply problematic and fundamentally incorrect ("Entrepreneurship is the process of starting a business, typically a startup company offering an innovative product, process or service"). The classic definition pulls more from the work of Schumpeter and is much more correctly conceptualized as 'venture formation' wherein the venture may or may not be or become a business. While Schumpeter is mentioned later it seems to be somewhat mis-characterized to support the presented POV on entrepreneurship rather than as the work that frames the whole discussion. I thought about editing just that section but I feel like the majority of the article flows from there and such a localized edit would largely change the tone and focus of the whole article.  Thoughts? --128.211.169.1 (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of entrepreneurship 

message: Can a short definition of serial entrepreneur be included in the body of the article? Thanks! Triplecaña (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial entrepeneur 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Entrepreneurship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140720225149/https://libraries.ucsd.edu/info/resources/glossary-political-economy-terms to https://libraries.ucsd.edu/info/resources/glossary-political-economy-terms
*Added  tag to http://pcbfaculty.ou.edu/classfiles/Mgt%206973_Entrepreneurship%20Seminar%20Fall%202011/Wk%202_Theory%20&%20Entrepreneur/Gartner%202001%20ETP_Elephants.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Instead of edit-warring, please discuss the disputed edit here. First of all, the edit misses basic bibliographic details - where was this study published (if at all)? Has it been reviewed? What is the author's expertise? I found a "Pearson MSc, PhD" via Google but his fields of expertise are robotics and engineering, not entrepeneurship or business topics in general. Secondly, most of the added paragraph violates WP:NPOV in its generalizing adulation of entrepeneurs. If the study has been written in the same uncritical PR speak, I strongly recommend to rewrite these parts. Lastly, aside from the questions about the source and the unencyclopedic biased language, Wikipedia is no venue to promote recent research (see also WP:CITESPAM) - such self-promotional edits are prohibited. GermanJoe (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-warring about Pearson "PhD study" 

message: === Where the problem is === 
The first sentence of the "Social" section of this article says [quote:]Social entrepreneurship is the use of the by start up companies and other entrepreneurs to develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues.[51]
=== What the problem is === 
The problem seems to be that the word "of", there, is not followed by a proper noun phrase, as a "prepositional object". It is followed [only] by the word "the", and ... that's it.  Then that is followed by some other parts of the sentence, ... but, those do NOT seem to be part of the "prepositional phrase" introduced by the word "of". 
This situation seems to go all the way back to the edit that added (or, "created") that "Social" section -- namely, during this edit.
=== How should it be corrected? === 
I would be happy to edit that sentence, but I do not know what that part of that sentence (starting with the word "of") should say. 
Any advice? or comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor (grammatical?) error correction needed  

message: I would be happy to edit that sentence, but I do not know what that part of that sentence (starting with the word "of") should say. 
Any advice? or comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should it be corrected? 

message: Just wanted to comment that I reread that clause about 5 times, mostly in frustration at being unable to parse it, before arriving at the same conclusion(s) that you did. I was quite surprised to see such an expertly articulated analysis, in total agreement with my own thoughts, outlined with such precision here on the talk page.
The expertise of somebody who knows how to fix this is desperately needed... it may be unfair, but as it stands, this single red flag of a paragraph immediately warns the reader that the entire article may be of much poorer quality than meets the eye. 
Funk munkey (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concurring Comment 

message: - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurship_education 
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_leadership 
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_finance
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_economics 
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_orientation 
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_network
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_feminism Pasz4 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to See Also 

message: I have reverted the recent good-faith addition by , but would like to clarify some of the concerns about this new section: most of the statements seem rather vague and have been phrased in an "essay-ish" tone (first-person statements and speculative assessments should generally be avoided). For example:  is a generic buzzphrase - which specific "value" exactly? Or : which challenges? and how exactly? A second, smaller problem is the lack of structure in the section. It mostly consists of separate, only loosely-related statements, but does not form a coherent presentation of the overall aspect. A third, albeit minor, issue: the entire section relies on information published in Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. Ideally information should be based on a broader range of sources from diverse publications and viewpoints. Even if the presented information is reliable, relying on only 1 publication risks reflecting a possible bias from the journal.
Apologies for the lengthy explanation, but I wanted to try to offer as much constructive feedback as possible to encourage further improvements, and maybe a new revised version of this section. If in doubt, possible additions can also be discussed and tweaked here on article talk first. I'd be glad to help. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rural" entrepeneurship 

message: Interesting Topic Moshphil (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrepreneurs 

message: Is it time for a section talking about the cultural impacts of entrepreneurship? Both the good and the bad of how 'enterpreneurship' seems to be everyone's dream. It seems to have a pretty big impact with teenagers idolising characters like GaryVee. I feel it's noteworthy. ElliotPadfield (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Entrepreneur Culture 

message: Change ‘This is sometimes been referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ to ‘This has sometimes been referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ or to ‘This is sometimes referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ 172.118.117.15 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (the latter option) Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020 

message: What does it exactly mean? 
In short 182.48.242.125 (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It means you are credulous enough to believe that the entrepreneur in question has more talent than money.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5B20:CAA0:2DF7:667F:AAE8:4BFD (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrepreneurship 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tonai Moore (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English 102

message: I don't think the picture of Malala makes sense, there's certainly nothing in this article or in the Malala Yousafzai article that suggests she's a "social entrepreneur" nor is she called one in reliable sources. :3 F4U (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, removed! ITBF (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of the Malala picture 

message: why are they called basic 222.127.246.89 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tle