This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminist economics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Feminist economics has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from ((WAP assignment))
on 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from ((WAP assignment))
on 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mattsaathoff. Peer reviewers: FPizzo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Several of the diagrams are incorrectly devised. Chopped off scales do not belong in a serious article, so diagrams like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_womens_earnings_and_employment_by_industry_2009.png seriously harm the credibility of the article. This is not because the diagram actually shows incorrect data, but because it exaggerates the point to be made, at a quick glance they do not portray the data.
The risk is that readers who would otherwise have found the article informative and reasonable might view it a dubious and POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.240.230 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is currently classified amongst "Economic thought" in the box at the bottom of the page which includes schools of thought such as Classical, Neo-classical, Keynesian, etc. Doesn't seem as though "feminist economics" is considered as a distinct school of thought; surely it takes more than one peer-reviewed journal and a Wikipedia page to give the school the credibility it needs to be stood amongst Marx, Keynes, the Austrian School, etc? Many of the female specific issues mentioned in the introduction to the article are also covered by other fields, such as labour economics. The article even includes the statement "there is no definitive list of the principles of feminist economics". Is this really a school of thought? Can someone explain and/or condense the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.83.226 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
At first glance, this seems to be a very interesting and informative article. But I couldn't help being a bit surprised by the apparent absence of any section called 'Criticisms of Feminist Economics'. This seems a pity, as it makes the otherwise-seemingly-excellent article appear unbalanced. Or alternatively it would be a bit depressing if the absence was because there were no criticisms yet, tending to suggest that the discipline was still at the earliest stage ('First they try to ignore you') of the journey a new idea is said to have to travel towards general acceptance ('First they try to ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they condemn you, and then you win', or alternatively, in more pessimistic versions, 'and then they claim it was known all along'). However I know too little of the subject to feel competent to try to supply such a section myself, and I'm probably also temperamentally poorly suited to doing so. Can anybody else have a go? Tlhslobus (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There may be an opportunity here to discuss theories regarding the monetizing of the non-market activities and the effects thereof. Amartya Sen would be a good source for looking into this. Alexbolden15 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feminist economics. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Feminist economics. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://tek.bke.hu/regikorok/sen/docs/development.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has been rated as Mid-importance in the Economics project, which is defined as:
Subject fills in more minor details of economics, or adds a depth of understanding to the field. A practicing economist would find these subjects useful, but lay people would likely not.
I would dispute the current article rating. Feminist economics is gaining relevance in the mainstream and established schools of economic thought and I believe it should be tagged as High Importance:
Subject is important but not vital to a lay person's overview of economics. Broad economic topics taught at the undergraduate college level are likely of high importance.