Template talk:Economic systems sidebar

message: Right, I've followed your criteria, so I'm not sure what you're reverting me on. The criteria on which I've deleted these are in brackets (though other criteria may also arguably apply).
*Anglo-Saxon: Derivative Type (2).
*Capitalism: Ism. (4)
*Dual Economy: Stub (2,3,6)
*NIC: Derivative (2)
*Palace: Derivative Stub (2,3,6)
*Plantation: Derivative, poor quality (2,3,6)
*Socialism: Ism (4)
*Token: Theory, Idealist (1,5)
*Transition: Derivative, poor quality (2,3,6)
I've added Parecon, since it exists, is a good quality article, is a viable article in the immediate, isn't an ism, is pragmatic, and has a healthy content.--Nema Fakei 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's supposed to be a WikiProject on Economics, but I haven't found it after a quick search. I see no reason why this can't be resolved by discussion. I can accept your criteria (although I would probably choose/word them differently), and I've tried to apply them honestly and rigorously. I suspect this isn't so much a question of detailed economics as taxonomy, which can be sorted by simply looking at the articles and discussing what we want this template to be used for. I can certainly tell you that the ins and outs of the Mycenaean bureaucracy aren't required knowledge to get rid of 'Palace economy'. To be honest, I'm a bit baffled by what exactly you want. At the moment, we've got a load of derivatives, 'ism's and stubs - exactly what you've said you don't want. If my contributions don't fit with your idea of the template, could you explain where it is I'm going wrong? --Nema Fakei 00:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations of changes 

message: Right, the system I'm working on is this:
*As far as I'm concerned, anyone can add economies they come across. I'm sure I've left some out.
*Articles that deal with sectors of economies (e.g. Underground economy) which can be attributed to at least one historical or present-day example should be placed in the Sectors and Systems group, unless:
:*The article describes an instance or group of instances, rather than a generic srchetype, in which case, it belongs in the Real-World Examples and Models group (e.g. New industrial economy).
*Articles primarily concerned with philosophies, ideologies, political theory, or anything which is not discussed in economic terms (and can not be discussed without recourse to ideology) belongs with Ideologies and Theories (e.g. Socialist economy; for non-ideological realisations, see Planned economy and Participatory economy).
*Articles dealing with types of economy which have never ventured outside controlled lab conditions or the imaginations of their creators also belong in Ideologies and Theories (e.g. Token economy).
--Nema Fakei 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current categorisation 

message: hello, I added the tnavbar at the bottom. This should make it easier to view, edit & talk about the template. I also added a pic of gold bars; I hope this doesn't offend anyone. I know not all economic systems are based on, or even use, gold. But personally I like it when templates have some kind of identifing icon. I choose gold bars b/c it is on the portal page. Naufana : talk 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: gold bars

message: Shosystems of the world? It appears to refer to a single one-year psychological study. I'm going to any major impact on human history. --Kris Schnee 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Token Economy

message: There is heated debate over at the Economics article on the use of the Economic systems sidebar. My position in the debate has been that there's one over-riding reason that use of the sidebar on that page is inappropriate which is that the Economics article is not part of that series. Another editor strongly disagrees with that reasoning. I would be grateful if others can either authoritatively clarify this issue or add their own opinions. Cretog8 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree: economics isn't an economic system, so the template is out of place. Of course, I'm not a disinterested party, so I'd appreciate an outside opinion just as much as Cretog. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the disputes over using the "Economic system" sidebar in economics articles outside of its scope, we've created a new economics sidebar.  The new Economics sidebar contains all the information currently presented on the Economic systems sidebar.  I thought I would mention it in case there was interest in retiring this sidebar in favor of just using the Economics one.  Cheers Morphh  (talk) 11:18, 01 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I !vote for retirement. It does appear that this template is superseded. Though I'm totally open to arguments to the contrary. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: In terms of pure information content, the old template is superseded. In terms of "feel", I would prefer this "Economic systems" template for those particular articles. However, I'm not particularly invested in those articles, so this is a soft keep, I suppose. Again, getting strong feedback might require making the substitution and seeing if the regular observers of those articles object. An intermediate choice could be to copy the "Economics sidebar", but switching the "Economic systems" to being expanded by default, and the "Methodologies", "Fields" etc. being compressed by default. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of sidebar 

message: The template currently has two similarly named sections; "By coordination" and "coordination". --Vinsci (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both "By coordination" and "coordination" sections 

message: Should we remove "Communism" from the list of Major types at the top? –Vipz (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any objection to calling them "authoritarian socialist"  that's what reliable sources generally call them, instead of "communist". I remain highly skeptical this is the case, though. What we have here is a term, "communist", with two widely publicised meanings that do not entirely agree. You are favoring one highly academic, technical definition (and not, incidentally, the only definition used by all academics), while 99% of our readers are going to understand and expect the more popular one. If your definitional exclusivity idea had merit, then going to Google Scholar and doing searches on terms like "communist regime" and "the communist government of" should produce basically no results, because there would be no such thing as a communist government of or regime in anywhere. But we actually get thousands and thousands of academic journal hits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @SMcCandlish: "communist regime" and "the communist government of" as in ideological orientation, not the economic system. These are instances of "communist" that are used interchangeably / synonymously with a more precise label "Marxist–Leninist". When referring to the economic systems of these countries we've went over, "communist" and "socialist" are never used simultaneously to refer to different things. And if you search Google Scholar for "communist economic system" you will see that it has much less in results than "socialist economic system". –Vipz (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think communism (under either definition) is an economic system, I don't think you've read much Marx.  And of course there should be more hits for "socialist economic system" since there are many more countries with such a system than what we might call communist ones.  Anyway, we don't need to keep going back and forth. I've said my piece, and other people will probably want to weigh in here. Maybe I'll be shown to be completely wrong-headed on this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @SMcCandlish: could you please quote the parts of my posts that tell you I ? Which countries have a socialist economic systems then (apart from those you call "communist"), could you provide a few examples? –Vipz (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure: 1)  2) Google "socialist country". Second search result (in my hit list, anyway):  –  I shouldn't have to be showing you how to use the Internet. :-/  Why are we still having this discussion? At some point you need to realize that your insistence on imposing your personally preferred pair of definitions on everyone else is not going to fly here, and neither is repeatedly badgering anyone who responds to an RfC you open until they give up and let you WP:WIN in frustration. Again: We two have said enough here, and this RfC isn't going to go anywhere without input from other editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh... believe me, I don't want to go back and forth on this neither. I'll happily wait for other editors, but I don't feel it's right to stop replying when you misinterpret my messages too badly. 1) "communist" in these two specific phrases refer to ideological orientation, that's what I stated. 2) This website (World Population Review) is anything but a reliable scholarly source on the topic. These countries either call themselves socialist despite reality or have constitutional references aiming to establish socialist societies in their countries but that's it. It would be like including Democratic People's Republic of Korea in a list of democratic states. Portugal is such a flourishing socialist country, right... Anyway, I'll stop replying for some time now. –Vipz (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

text: The Soviet-type economic planning article refers to the specific forms of planned economy used in historically existing Marxist-Leninist party-states, without much commitment to whether they represent genuine socialism, communism, state-capitalism, etc. as economic systems. However, it would be odd to use such a specific term alongside much broader ideal systems of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. 2003:D4:DF00:3393:1489:D2B0:B2FE:6F1F (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Communism" from the list of Major types at the top 

message: @SMcCandlish: "communism" is generally used as a buzzword, but most scholarly sources covering the topic care to use precise terminology when describing economic systems of nominally socialist states. They were, as already said, state capitalist systems with strong social welfare; some of them played with the concept of actually democraticizing workplaces (i.e. workers owning the means of production), the bare minimum for describing something even remotely socialist, but this mostly failed due to obstructions of the bureaucratic class.
At the best stretch of the definitions, you could describe these systems as socialist (authoritarian socialist that is), as many of them did and some still do. But if you want to describe these systems as "communist"... which countries' systems are socialist then?  –Vipz (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any objection to calling them "authoritarian socialist"  that's what reliable sources generally call them, instead of "communist". I remain highly skeptical this is the case, though. What we have here is a term, "communist", with two widely publicised meanings that do not entirely agree. You are favoring one highly academic, technical definition (and not, incidentally, the only definition used by all academics), while 99% of our readers are going to understand and expect the more popular one. If your definitional exclusivity idea had merit, then going to Google Scholar and doing searches on terms like "communist regime" and "the communist government of" should produce basically no results, because there would be no such thing as a communist government of or regime in anywhere. But we actually get thousands and thousands of academic journal hits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @SMcCandlish: "communist regime" and "the communist government of" as in ideological orientation, not the economic system. These are instances of "communist" that are used interchangeably / synonymously with a more precise label "Marxist–Leninist". When referring to the economic systems of these countries we've went over, "communist" and "socialist" are never used simultaneously to refer to different things. And if you search Google Scholar for "communist economic system" you will see that it has much less in results than "socialist economic system". –Vipz (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think communism (under either definition) is an economic system, I don't think you've read much Marx.  And of course there should be more hits for "socialist economic system" since there are many more countries with such a system than what we might call communist ones.  Anyway, we don't need to keep going back and forth. I've said my piece, and other people will probably want to weigh in here. Maybe I'll be shown to be completely wrong-headed on this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @SMcCandlish: could you please quote the parts of my posts that tell you I ? Which countries have a socialist economic systems then (apart from those you call "communist"), could you provide a few examples? –Vipz (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure: 1)  2) Google "socialist country". Second search result (in my hit list, anyway):  –  I shouldn't have to be showing you how to use the Internet. :-/  Why are we still having this discussion? At some point you need to realize that your insistence on imposing your personally preferred pair of definitions on everyone else is not going to fly here, and neither is repeatedly badgering anyone who responds to an RfC you open until they give up and let you WP:WIN in frustration. Again: We two have said enough here, and this RfC isn't going to go anywhere without input from other editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh... believe me, I don't want to go back and forth on this neither. I'll happily wait for other editors, but I don't feel it's right to stop replying when you misinterpret my messages too badly. 1) "communist" in these two specific phrases refer to ideological orientation, that's what I stated. 2) This website (World Population Review) is anything but a reliable scholarly source on the topic. These countries either call themselves socialist despite reality or have constitutional references aiming to establish socialist societies in their countries but that's it. It would be like including Democratic People's Republic of Korea in a list of democratic states. Portugal is such a flourishing socialist country, right... Anyway, I'll stop replying for some time now. –Vipz (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

text: The Soviet-type economic planning article refers to the specific forms of planned economy used in historically existing Marxist-Leninist party-states, without much commitment to whether they represent genuine socialism, communism, state-capitalism, etc. as economic systems. However, it would be odd to use such a specific term alongside much broader ideal systems of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. 2003:D4:DF00:3393:1489:D2B0:B2FE:6F1F (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended discussion