This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Laissez-faire 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, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
since my edits have been reverted I would like to discuss them here so we can reach consensus please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meistro1 ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
what does this mean "should be"? it seems to me that principle of laissez-faire is that markets are naturally competitive, and the statement should be implies something else (is a pre-amble to advocate intervention). Why the phrasing "should be" instead of "are"?
This section should be deleted. It is too irrelevant to the topic of laissez-faire. The top section should just be about laissez-faire. Meistro1 ( talk) 07:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is absurd leftist propaganda. The section on laissez-faire capitalism is 7 (sic!) times smaller than the section on socialism. Despite the fact that the text itself says: "laissez-faire has been commonly associated with capitalism".
Meanwhile, Google search:
As you can see, the difference in the number of results ranges from 10 to 300 (!!!) times, which is not reflected in the article. The article falsely promotes the idea that there is some kind of "laissez-faire socialism", when the sources on this term are completely marginal compared to "laissez-faire capitalism". 5.228.4.240 ( talk) 12:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This seems to say that before Croce there was an Italian word liberismo, from which Croce made the English word liberism; I suspect that is not accurate. —Tamfang ( talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
When the hovering tool-tip page preview in articles that link to this (Laissez-faire) article (i.e. from Corporatism such as the section here /info/en/?search=Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism ) the page preview contains the Gadsden "don't tread of me" flag. I don't think this is representative of the article.
I cannot see where this flag is being referenced in the article - I suspect in some HTML "hidden popup hint" as per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups#Features whereby the image shown in the preview can be controlled by adding an image hint to the article, in the form of an HTML comment such as <-- popup File:Desired Preview Image.jpg -->.
But this is beyond my editing skills to resolve.
Can someone correct this page? 89.242.207.237 ( talk) 11:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Laissez-faire 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, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
since my edits have been reverted I would like to discuss them here so we can reach consensus please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meistro1 ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
what does this mean "should be"? it seems to me that principle of laissez-faire is that markets are naturally competitive, and the statement should be implies something else (is a pre-amble to advocate intervention). Why the phrasing "should be" instead of "are"?
This section should be deleted. It is too irrelevant to the topic of laissez-faire. The top section should just be about laissez-faire. Meistro1 ( talk) 07:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is absurd leftist propaganda. The section on laissez-faire capitalism is 7 (sic!) times smaller than the section on socialism. Despite the fact that the text itself says: "laissez-faire has been commonly associated with capitalism".
Meanwhile, Google search:
As you can see, the difference in the number of results ranges from 10 to 300 (!!!) times, which is not reflected in the article. The article falsely promotes the idea that there is some kind of "laissez-faire socialism", when the sources on this term are completely marginal compared to "laissez-faire capitalism". 5.228.4.240 ( talk) 12:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This seems to say that before Croce there was an Italian word liberismo, from which Croce made the English word liberism; I suspect that is not accurate. —Tamfang ( talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
When the hovering tool-tip page preview in articles that link to this (Laissez-faire) article (i.e. from Corporatism such as the section here /info/en/?search=Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism ) the page preview contains the Gadsden "don't tread of me" flag. I don't think this is representative of the article.
I cannot see where this flag is being referenced in the article - I suspect in some HTML "hidden popup hint" as per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups#Features whereby the image shown in the preview can be controlled by adding an image hint to the article, in the form of an HTML comment such as <-- popup File:Desired Preview Image.jpg -->.
But this is beyond my editing skills to resolve.
Can someone correct this page? 89.242.207.237 ( talk) 11:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)