This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is in dire need of some edits. There is no core-periphery "theory," rather there are some methodological ideas about core / periphery structures from Social Network Analysis, and there is world-systems theory. World-systems theory uses the language of core-periphery, but it is not represented in this article.âPreceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.83.93 ( talk ⢠contribs)
Mrateb added essay regarding the Canary Islands as an example of the ultra-periphery. Rhaworth undid revisions with no commentary. The talk page (except for unsigned comment, above) was virtually nonexistent. I decided against undoing RHaworth's undo because the essay needs revisions, but a shorter version should be included. Please discuss before undoing work that is not obvious vandalism.
The question is where is the most appropriate place for Mrateb's contribution. The original core-periphery article is rather short, so the contribution has the effect of drowning out the main topic with a narrow subtopic. I would try to edit down what you wrote to 100-200 words that focuses on defining "ultra-periphery". Then, mention the Canary Islands as an example. Most of the bulk of the contribution is specific to the Canary Islands, so it would be more appropriate to include in the article on the Canary Islands rather than in the core-periphery article. An appropriate place would the section on the economy of the Canary Islands, and again, the contribution should be shortened so that it doesn't dominate the existing article. Leehach ( talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First it is assessed that it is a theory by a specific person at a given time. Later in the article it is stated that in other disciplines this notion is much older. That is not theory, that is why this article is inconsistent. Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 08:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree - there used to be an article focused on the world systems theory approach with a similar name to this article. It kind of reads like they've merged it with an article about social network analysis and conflated the two. -- Vincent Choya ( talk) 15:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is in dire need of some edits. There is no core-periphery "theory," rather there are some methodological ideas about core / periphery structures from Social Network Analysis, and there is world-systems theory. World-systems theory uses the language of core-periphery, but it is not represented in this article.âPreceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.83.93 ( talk ⢠contribs)
Mrateb added essay regarding the Canary Islands as an example of the ultra-periphery. Rhaworth undid revisions with no commentary. The talk page (except for unsigned comment, above) was virtually nonexistent. I decided against undoing RHaworth's undo because the essay needs revisions, but a shorter version should be included. Please discuss before undoing work that is not obvious vandalism.
The question is where is the most appropriate place for Mrateb's contribution. The original core-periphery article is rather short, so the contribution has the effect of drowning out the main topic with a narrow subtopic. I would try to edit down what you wrote to 100-200 words that focuses on defining "ultra-periphery". Then, mention the Canary Islands as an example. Most of the bulk of the contribution is specific to the Canary Islands, so it would be more appropriate to include in the article on the Canary Islands rather than in the core-periphery article. An appropriate place would the section on the economy of the Canary Islands, and again, the contribution should be shortened so that it doesn't dominate the existing article. Leehach ( talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First it is assessed that it is a theory by a specific person at a given time. Later in the article it is stated that in other disciplines this notion is much older. That is not theory, that is why this article is inconsistent. Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 08:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree - there used to be an article focused on the world systems theory approach with a similar name to this article. It kind of reads like they've merged it with an article about social network analysis and conflated the two. -- Vincent Choya ( talk) 15:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)