Jump to content

Talk:Economic globalization/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Purpose?

See no purpose for this stub article. Globalization is usually understood to include economic globalizaton. As such I propose redirect this to the globalization article.Ultramarine (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I'd rather see the economic stuff from globalization moved to here. Reason: every time I see "globalization" mentioned, I have to then determine which kind is being alluded to. It's annoying. They different kinds should all be split off, fleshed out, and linked properly from articles that currently link to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree, but this article certainly needs to provide a good answer as to what distinguishes economic globalization from "just globalization". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

China

Our country is an experiment in Globalization. Currently there would be very little economic globalization without China. Sadly it seems then, that economic globalization is dependent on a country that controls the size of the middle class work force in their country to manipulate their currency valuation position in the world for the benefit of a priviledged few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.162.141 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To Do List

Detail some negative effects, instead of merely describing efforts to solve them. Were the paragraphs that described the negative effects deleted? (Mar 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.77.98 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think history would be good. I found this .pdf that might be of use: Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks, and Risks Prevention It's an article on how the U.N. assesses economic globalization. I think might do a section on Globalization vs. Economic Globalization. Does anyone object to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyod (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Group 1: Add your ideas here about what sections and some references you would like to add to this article Kas205 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


It was said in class that we should do a history section and do a section comparing the difference between globalization and economic globalization. Since these two are so general they should probably be the next 2 sections after the intro--Ler321 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also posted a comment on the talk page of globalization saying that we were doing a project and any help is welcome--Ler321 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Great. I would like to focus on alternatives to economic globalization. I found a book that I think sounds interesting and relevant. Along with discussing alternatives, I will be talking about some case studies of exploited countries to use as examples. This may overlap with other group members sections, but I'm sure we can do some clean-up and readjusting to make the article flow.

Since we have 5 group members, I think we should allocate 1 person to the history section and 1 person to the comparison section. Any takers? There is a ton of information on economic globalization in China, if someone wants to focus on that too (but there may already be enough information on that topic on Wikipedia already).

Also, I've been searching google books and several books that I found are also available in the Econ Library (in Posvar). So that's just a heads up for a helpful resource.

These are a few resources I plan on using so far: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/sep/15/2 http://books.google.com/books?id=MywOAoRdJP4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization&hl=en&ei=K7jbTa2UC8ry0gHG7OHADw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=DznGtScIz1oC&pg=PA1&dq=economic+globalization+challenges&hl=en&ei=CrzbTZjhIM_dgQeTiIkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20challenges&f=false --Kas205 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good; sources are a good way forward. If you need help with wikipedia generally, the helpdesk is a good place to start; if you want advice from somebody familiar with the subject, try asking the Economics WikiProject. My talkpage is always open too. Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


I can work on the history section. I'll hit the major events that led to what economic globalization is today. I found a few sources at books.google.com too: http://books.google.com/books?id=O2m5ARhXICEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization+history&hl=en&ei=C-zbTevtKcHdgQfl1tTvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20history&f=false

and

http://books.google.com/books?id=ouiSFSFh_N4C&pg=PA1&dq=economic+globalization+history&hl=en&ei=C-zbTevtKcHdgQfl1tTvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20history&f=false

Let me know if there is anything else specific you think should go in this section--Ler321 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there is room for effects of economic globalization on culture or economics in general as globalization has the some of that outline and it makes sense [user: talk:brucebeckerman/talk}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucesbeckerman (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Here are some links to possible sources http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2258 , http://knol.google.com/k/effects-on-globalization-in-culture-differentiation#, [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}

Maybe we could do something like positive, and negative consequences of economic globalization. We could focus on all the good things that it does for the global economy, as well as how it tends to exploit certain groups of people for the benefit of another group. I will look up more after my night class, if you guys think that would be an alright section. We could possibly also have a section that focuses on simply listing some of the most prominent corporations that are partaking in economic globalization, and give link to their websites or something like that. Let me know what you guys think, I'll be in class til about 9:15, but can surely work on it after class. Rsg20 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Do you have any preference on what topic you would like to do? I think specific groups of exploitation would be good. As for individual corporations, that may be a slippery slope. Have you found a resource that list the varying corporations? If so, one could add the varying ramifications in which they implement economic globalization. Tyod (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I could do specific groups exploited by economic globalization. And you were right about the slippery slope, it would be more difficult than I had thought once I started looking. Is there something else you guys would like me to work on? I figured I would start with the exploitation of women due to globalization in "Women in the Japanese Workforce" By Bev Bishop, and work my way from there, surely there will be a lot out there. Rsg20 (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan. I am really happy to see you have started to discuss things on that talk page and interact with one another, rather than just declaring what you'll do. Note that this has already resulted in one interested Wikipedian stopping by and offering assistance (thanks, Bob!).
Keep in mind that you will be graded as a group, so while individual activity is important (it will "weight" your grade), you are welcome to help your colleagues with their sections. By editing only your own section, you run the risk of it being in a different style than those of your colleagues. also, keep in mind that the lead, while not the largest part of the article, should summarize all the other sections, so it is a section that is usually best written in collaboration by all editors editing the article.
Don't forget to reference all content you are adding. Usually one reliable reference per sentence is enough (but if you build your sentence relying on multiple sources, you'll use more than one ref per sentence).
You can receive email (or other) notifications whenever this page is changed. See Wikipedia:Syndication for how-to.
Other things to keep in mind: 1) you are welcome to ask for suggestions and advice from others; try doing so by visiting the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above 2) if you mange to significantly improve the article over the course of five days, you can list it at T:TDYK and see your work featured on Wikipedia's main page (this will also net you extra credit). ---Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Okay I added some of the history section. I know its not much-I plan on adding to it. Let me know if there is anything significant you think I should add.--Ler321 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC) It looks good. I was wondering what we are supposed to add and at what pace. I know it would be helpful if we discussed our views together after class so that we can make some real progress as a group. I feel like we has some good ideas, but we were talking at each other with no real unity. Would be nice to sit down and jot a to-do list. I like that you started the history in detail because that is a requirement regardless of our future topic targets [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)]

Ler321, a good idea would be adding current information on the historical implications economic globalization has in today's markets. One thought is the cross-continental aspect of it. I think it's pretty good and if you add 2000's era information, I think it'll be spot on. Keep it up :)Tyod (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we all need to talk about this today in class to get a good idea in where we're at. I'm lost but I think there will be some clarity after today's class. Tyod (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a new section entitled "Irreversibility". I does need expanded, so comments are much needed. Here's what I wrote so far, "According to China's prominent economist Gao Shanquan, economic globalization is an irreversible trend due to the fact the world markets are in great need of science and information technologies. With the growing demands of science and technology, Shanquan states that with world markets take on an "increasing cross-border division of labor" that works its way down to every facet of globalized markets from both developed and developing nations." A review and expansion would be great!Tyod (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a section I'm probably going to call "solutions to exploitation due to economic globalization"... Ryan I believe you are doing a section on exploitation so my section should probably appear right under yours. For now I think it will fit best under Tyler's. Looks lovely so far everyone --Kas205 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be better to merge both together. Keep in mind that not everyone agrees that globalization leads to exploitation. You don't want to repeat what is said in Globalization#Debate; a brief summary would be enough. Avoid the social-theory-like discussion of "good and bad". This article should explain what economic globalization is and how it differs from "generic globalization"; you should indeed discuss the globalization impacts on economy, and mention the debate on whether it leads to exploitation or not, but getting sidetracked into the "globalization is evil/is not" is a path you want to avoid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


I just added my section. Ryan maybe you can focus on the positive aspects of economic globalization instead? That way we can merge our sections together to make it more of one mega-section about the debate over globalization? I'd perfer not to start completely over but if my section sounds too opinionated I can try something else. --Kas205 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys sorry, I've been super busy with school and work. But that sounds great, I will work on the positive aspects of globalization. I'm gonna be working on it a lot tonight, so thanks for bearing with me. Rsg20 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

AND also.. Where and how do you guys think I should put my section about the positive aspects of globalization? Rsg20 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I also added a new section "informal reviews" to our talk page so we can distinguish our specific goals and tasks from other groups --Kas205 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

hey ryan sorry if I sound bossy, you're doing fine! Everyone is just suggesting that we keep the article neutral and I already made it kind of biased (which I need to adjust a little anyway) so if you want to add some positive things to the "debate over globalization" section I think that would be good. --Kas205 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Effects on world cultures

Hey guys, I just added a section called "Effects on Wold Cultures". I still have some citations to add and some more information, but it takes me forever to fiture out the formatting stuff and I wanted to get it added before I refined it. If any of you think this is good or bad, please let me know. I think it was relevant because it economic globalization effects cultures and cultures then effect economic globalizations direction. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good start, and nice job tying the economic globalization to culture. Try not to get distracted by the generic globalization - the second part of the para no longer makes it clear that we are talking about the economic globalization, rather than the generic one. To make it clear, consider the difference between 1) how cultures influence one another, creating a global culture and 2) how does increasingly interconnected economy impacts cultures worldwide? Your section should be about 2), not 1). Something you may want to look into is McDonaldization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there may be some fine lines between economic globalization and globalization. I looked into the McDonaldization article and though I see correlations, it's going to be interesting to tie them in together. Maybe it's just an oversight thing, but I think economic globalization is pretty broad and can encompass a lot of ideas. Could someone guide me on what to expand for irreversibility? Is there anything that people want to know more about? People haven't commented on my segment...(not to sound selfish)Tyod (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

VM dropped a comment about irreversibility below. I do agree that it would benefit form inclusion of more viewpoints. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys I just added my sections about positive effects. Let me know if you guys think anything should be added or changed. Rsg20 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr for your input. I am going to use McDonaldization as a key argument tonight. I think that will really add to the legitimacy of our post. I see how the argument should not be focused on general globalization but rather it should focus on economic style influences and changes. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added a MacDonalization background to my culture part. Maybe you have some other ideas on what to add that could beef up our Effects on Culure portion. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I also like the irreversibility portion. I can see some avenues open for example pertaining to a specific case or two where interdependence is sighted besides just theory, but it's a great start. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Informal Reviews

Here is a new section we can use to evaluate the other groups pages: --Kas205 (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we can use some of the group working on archaic globalization's techniques. I like how they divide their talk page into separate sections depending on their issues/ideas. It seems that may be an easier way to see what each other has to say (especially since our to-do list section is getting so long!). Maybe since we are both working on globalization projects we could link our pages together (this could possibly work in the history section) --Kas205 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That could definitely work, also with our comparison section-although I don't know if they are planning on doing a comparison section too. I also looked at the Social Web page. I'm not sure how much of the page was done to begin with but they did a good job adding to and editing it. I left a comment on their talk page.--Ler321 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I also like that archaic globalization talked about what goods were traded and who traded them. I think that would be extremely hard to do with our article since there are so many examples out there, but I'll at least try to highlight a few that are benefiting in my positive aspects section. If anyone can think of any other way to incorporate that idea let me know! Rsg20 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Classmate reviews of Economic Globalization

It's looking good so far, guys! I think it looks pretty professional for what you've done up until this point, so just keep it up. I had a few notes:

  1. You might consider editing the casual tone of this sentence in the History section, or maybe even replacing it entirely: "Someone had to be there to grow the crops and feed and tend to the livestock, which leads to a labor market."
  2. In the "Debate over Exploitation" section, you might consider clarifying who these "Northern" countries are -- is this the U.S. and Canada? Or do you mean Western countries? In either case, which are they?
  3. You may want to look at World Systems Theory as a way to add on to the "Debate over Exploitation" section, or perhaps several of them! This would be a good way to compare what the scholars you are referencing are saying to a well known and established globalization theory. Aspects of World Systems Theory that might be especially relevant are the concepts of core countries, semi-periphery countries and periphery countries.

Hope this helps, and good job guys! --Rsoruss (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally (or not quite), the core countries, semi-periphery countries and periphery countries articles were developed by your collegues, students working on educational assignments a while back. World systems theory is an article I contributed to myself, significantly, but that does not mean it is finished (as with many other things, it is a draft in the works). But it may give you some useful ideas. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I read the section on Social Web. It was pretty cool. They talked about the web growing from it's origins in the 70's to it's current evolution and use today and mingling with the media. They listed facebook, myspace, and other blogging sites as instances of social media. I would argue the web as an entity is a social process. It gives us possible ways to go with influences of economic globalization and its influence on culture. They have some work to do, but it was a nice outline for how it will follow. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This article looks great so far. The only thing that I could think of improving would be the section the narrowing of the gap between rich and poor. The paragraph seems a bit repetitive and doesn't give much information. I also think that you should include another opinion on the irreversibility subject Ebw7 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'll add some suggestions in this section.

  • Try to avoid "essay" style, particularly in the "Debate over Exploitation due to Economic Globalization", for example "In order to create better economic relations globally, international lending agencies must work with developing countries to “help reverse the international concentration of credit and expedite the financial development of these countries”."
  • This kind of section really needs to use a wide variety of sources and views. And most of these should come from academics, not journalists or pundits. Let me suggest the Indian economist Jagdish Bhagwati, who's written some very accessible works on this sometime ago.
  • There should be a discussion of the so-called "First Globalization" of the 19th century. It's worth pointing out that measured as share of World GDP, trade and capital flows were probably higher before WWI than in the 1980's. The "new globalization" that we are familiar with is in a way just a return to a previous trend. (Same thing may also be true for labor flows).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will work on improving the "debate over exploitation" section. The sources are mostly books about globalization as a whole, but I will work to add more variety. --Kas205 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A good tip to avoid essay style is to remember that encyclopedia (like Wikipedia) should summarize things in a neutral fashion, and not take a stance. Encyclopedias are not manifestos, or how-to's. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and keep in mind "Wikipedia is not a publisher of..." personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic... advocacy and opinion pieces... or a manual (even if it is a manual for reforming the world). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Beginning as early as 4000 BC, people were trading goats and livestock as a means of money. People residing in an early civilization in Mesopotamia (Sumer) came up with a token system that was seen as one of the first forms of commodity money - these two sentences are about interpersonal trade and the invention of money, not necessarily about anything called "Economic globalization". While most likely the invention of a standardized unit of account that could be used as a medium of exchange was a necessary condition for something like globalization to occur, it is not the same thing as economic globalization, nor does it imply it. In fact, long distance trade in goods (as well as migration - we can't really talk about capital flows here), did not begin to happen until much much later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Labor markets have been around as long as commodity markets. Labor markets grew out of commodity markets because labor was needed to grow the crops and tend to the livestock. - these are some pretty strong theoretical claims and need sources. Basically, the second claim is more or less true though for the wrong reason. Labor is needed to grow crops and tend to the livestock whether or not there is an actual commodity market in crops and dairy (for example, subsistence farming). Labor markets, like many other markets, grew out of increasing degree of specialization and diversification of consumption patterns. The first claim is pretty dubious - trade in goods probably preceded trade in labor by quite a bit (at least outside the household - but since we're talking about globalization here that's not really applicable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Irreversibility - this is essentially an opinion of just one person and it should be balanced by other views. And there are many such out there, in good part because as historical examples of WWI and the collapse of the "First Era of Globalization" show, it's probably NOT an irreversible trend (some people do argue that globalization in financial markets is more "irreversible" than globalization in goods or labor markets).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I uploaded this graph to commons which may be useful:
World trade as share of world GDP

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey guys,

I think you are hitting a lot of main points. On a lot of wiki pages I see more topics within the discussion. Im not sure where you can expand, but its something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey guys,

Good work so far. It looks like your effects on world culture part is still being developed but I would like to suggest that maybe for that section you could add in different regions, past and present and how it has changed over time. If there are any prominent events that really helped shape society they could be added and given some explanation.

Bfowler513 (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Volunteer Marek, it seems that you have a thorough knowledge in regards to economics and globalization. Your responses alone consist of whole articles and I don't understand why haven't you contributed to the article besides reviewing. Grant it, your critiques have been constructive, it seems that your discourse has a specific ideological track in which you want to steer it. Please don't take this the wrong way and I don't want my inquiry to sound combative but it seems that you have a lot to contribute but no producing anything substantive in regards to publishing besides comments. Tyod (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken Tyod. It's my understanding that a bunch of you are working on this article for a class project. As a result I don't want to do your job for you but rather help you do a better job, which is why I haven't edited this article (yet) myself but just stuck to making suggestions. Basically the article should stick to factual and verifiable information rather engaging in editorializing - which given that this is a difficult topic can easily happen. As an economist I know the most about the "economic" aspect of "Economic globalization". In other words the precise data on things like income, trade, capital flows, etc. On the other hand there are a lot of things written in popular (non-academic and often unreliable) sources about a concept like "globalization". You have to be careful here. Btw, if you think that an economist's take on "Economic globalization" is ideologically motivated, you can look into some academic literature in political science and the like to get a different perspective. As an economist I tend to have a fairly low opinion of the quality of the research done in those discipline on these topics (though it has gotten much better in the last ten years or so), but at least these would be reliable, academic sources. On Wikipedia, at least ideally, it all comes down to the reliability of the sources you use, rather than whether or not you (or I) agree with a particular piece of information in a particular source.
Also, I got a few more images I can suggest here, which I'll upload when I'm a bit less busy. Whether or not you want to include them in the article at this point is up to you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys... by now I assume your pretty much done,so I just wanted to say the article looks great and the sections seemed to be better organized and broken down well. good job..--Coreyj33 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

The last paragraph in technology starting with: "Multinational corporations reorganized production...", could be addressed. There are several 'sentences' that are not complete. -Artful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.133.189 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

History section

Re: By the early 1900s, it was rare to come across a town that was not influenced by foreign markets—whether it be in labor, prices, or any other policy of business.[5] With advances in boat technology and the inventions of the railroad and telephone, communication with other parts of the country and world was readily available. Towns were no longer limited to what they alone could produce and what the next two towns over would trade with them. People everywhere had the accessibility and resources to obtain goods from the other side of the world.

This is true but it all came to an end, first with the outbreak of World War I and then with the Great Depression. International trade and capital flows collapsed, and countries began imposing immigration quotas. The History section is missing the subsequent development where there was no globalization until it began picking up again in the 1970's.

Some graphs here may be helpful. Here is one which illustrates this development pretty nicely [1] (you can't copy the graph itself because it is copyrighted, but if you can get the underlying data you can reconstruct it yourself). Here's another good source btw, [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Globalization#History is very poor when it comes to aftermath of World War I, and it of course concerns more than just economic aspects. But it may contain a useful source or two, or some content you may want to adapt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks so much for your suggestions. I'm reworking some of the history section now. I'm also looking into those resources. Thanks again--Ler321 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's good you added the above information to the article but you need to be more careful with sourcing. Both in regard to the kinds of sources used and whether or not they actually support the statements made.
For example this sentence: This caused a slowing of world-wide trade and even led to other countries introducing immigration caps;
  1. It's sourced to this website [3] which may not be a reliable source
  2. There's nothing about immigration on that website.
  3. Is clumsy stylistically. Who were these "other countries"? If you're thinking of it from the US point of view then they should at least be defined - but actually, US was one of the countries which instituted immigration quotas during this time.
This work [4] has more information, is more reliable and can help address the stylistic problems.
Likewise, the cited website does not say anything about "great advances in economic globalization were disrupted by World War I and the Great Depression in the late 1920’s" so it shouldn't be used as a source to support that claim either. Maybe something in this book could help [5] (this would be a great source for the topic generally, although it's a bit more technical).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree that [6] is not a reliable source; it is a "random website", citing no sources, without a clear author, that we should avoid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks so much for your help I will go back and try to fix those sources. Some of the sentences I struggeled to find sources for becuase I felt they were more or less common knowledge. I came up with the sentences from a colaboration of readings I have done on this topic through my studies at Pitt. How would you suggest I cite things that aren't necessarily lifted from another source?--Ler321 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Common knowledge sentences don't need to be cited (Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). But which ones are common knowledge? I find Google Books a good tool for finding reliable references, quickly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I also have a question--why is Investopedia not a credible source? It is essentially "wikipedia" for the financial world. You can find many scholaraly articles here and is often times referenced by the Wall Street Journal and Marketwatch.com. I thought this would be a good reference when talking about the capital market.--Ler321 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Investopedia is a borderline source. Note that Wikipedia does not treat itself as source. Looking at this, I see no author, no sources. There are better sources out there, particularly at Google Books. Investopiedia could be used as a source in a pinch, but we have time to find a better source, particularly for an article that is aiming to be a GA-class. Also, ask about it at WP:RSN and see what other editors will say about it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A recent change

I think this is great text. However, there are a couple of points to be cautious about:

  1. It's very reliant on a single IMF ref. As this is quite a wideranging text of global importance (on a slightly controversial subject), it's probably appropriate, and probably not very hard, to find another source on the same subject (which might have its own nuances).
  2. Be wary of phrases like "As we see from the information above" - it can make the text read more like an essay instead of an encyclopædia article
  3. It might be a good idea to resize that image and make the text flow around it better.

Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Image help

I've been trying everything to try and make the image smaller, but I can't figure it out. Does anyone know how to do this? Rsg20 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Like this Please add a caption to the image on this page, and on the image own page, as well as a source used (on the image page). Nice job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I added the correct caption, although I could be wrong. And I was wondering where to add the citation on the image page, because I do not see cite as an option. I was thinking it should go under the summary section of the image page, but it would also make sense to go under the licensing section. Sorry for the confusion, I'm just new at this. Rsg20 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, images are one of the "beyond what is expected" things in our course, and you are doing a very good job with them. Adding a citation to the image - it is done by expanding information in the "Source" entry (it currently says "Own work") on the image page. You don't need the ref/ref tags for that, just plain text will be enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I downsized the image to 300px --Guerillero | My Talk 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

With regard to this image, please be careful and precise. What the graph shows is NOT "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a "level" variable - say, 10 trillion per year) but rather the growth rate of "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a rate variable - say 2% per year). This is a bit like confusing "we traveled 10,000 miles" with "we were driving at 60 miles per hour" (basically the graph is saying "We drove 60 miles" where what it means to say is "we drove 60 miles per hour"). Two different things. Honestly, labeling "Real Per Capita GDP" as "Percent" just doesn't make (mathematical, logical, economic) sense. This is from the Dollar and Kraay paper I suggested but it should be labeled correctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

too opinionated?

I am wondering if my section on "debate over exploitation" is too opinionated. I understand I need to add a couple various sources to expand the credibility. And I think the article is nicely balanced as we also have a section on the positive effects of economic globalization. However is there anything in particular I can add or subtract to this article to make it more "encyclopedia-like"? thanks! Kas205 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on the section: 1) "some may argue" - who? Be precise, a much better structure would be "Scholars like X and Y". 2) remember to cite every sentence; in sections with controversial claims like this it is especially important 3) Phrases like "must give voice" and "it is important" suggest that the writer (you) is issuing judgements and suggesting the "right" course of action; this is an unencyclopedic, essay-like style that needs to be rewarded. Again, you can say that "X argues that we must give voice... and that it is important". But just saying "It is important" is, indeed, an unattributed opinion that we should avoid. 4) If this is a debate, where is the other point of view? In other words, who argues there is no exploitation? A potential solution is to merge this section with the "Positive effects of economic globalization"; then retitle the first part as "Criticism and negative effects" and the second, as "Praise and positive effects". Of course, some further rewriting and such would be (is...) needed, and the above is only a suggested course of action, you may develop a different one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

section formatting?

I merged the positive and solutions sections into one main section about the debate over exploitation but now everything under that section is also merged into the debate section. is there a way to fix this? or is there a way to make little subsections out of the positive and solutions sections? Kas205 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's easy. Just don't use level 1 heading, that's reserved for the title. Change level 1 to level 2, and relevant level 2 to level 3. See Wikipedia:Headings for more info (but briefly, each equal sign means one level of heading). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks! Kas205 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Does there need to be a cite for the word economic globalization in the beginning? I think it's a little bit self-defeating to the overall article and the link is inconsistent with its definition. It's just an observation I made...Tyod (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

PROBLEM

GUYS! I'm sorry! I tried to edit my section again. I was doing more research and wanted to add some stuff and a few resources and it changed the heading on me! I swear I didn't even touch it! Please help me fix this!

--Ler321 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

never mind i got it under control! However, I added a sentence to the end of my section and can't seem to be able to cite it. I have all of the information and have tried adding in the "cite template" and it won't work. I know how to do it but every time I do, nothing happens. Any ideas??--Ler321 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Citation showed up on the bottom of the page (its number 5). But an inline reference won't show up next to the sentence. Let me know....--Ler321 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you are adding the citation to the top of the page, rather than to the end of the sentence you want it to be, presumably. PS. Don't forget to cite which page(s) you are using. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...I finally figured it out but I still don't know what I was doing wrong-my curser was at the end of the sentence I was trying to cite...I don't know. Thanks--Ler321 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Review comments

As the assignment of a GA reviewer to this article seems to be delayed, here are my new review comments:

  • lead: seems good, but for one problem: per WP:LEAD, lead should not introduce new concepts, but summarize the article. Yet your lead introduces concepts that are never mentioned later, such as trans-national trade, foreign direct investment, or trade barriers. Please make sure that all concepts mentioned in the lead are mentioned in the body; then move the references from the lead there (lead needs no references, if it is a proper summary, all items mentioned there are mentioned and referenced in the article body)
  • History: 1) why is "Commodity" capitalized? "goats and livestock" - aren't goats livestock? 2) Weren't they trading anything else, like fish, furs, tools or pottery? This sentence needs a ref (and so do many others; insufficient ref dendsity - we are aiming for one per sentence - is a problem here and elsewhere). 3) "collaboration of markets" - uh, that's a weird phrase. Please reword it; I just checked Google Books and this phrase is not used. What do you mean by that? Growth of the markets, perhaps? Note, unreferenced sentence... 4) "boat technology" - you mean, "shipbuilding technology", I presume 5) more ilinks, why terms like World War I and the Great Depression are not linked in the second para? 6) Last sentence is unreferenced. 7) This section could be easily doubled in length.
  • Irreversibility: a very short section, missing ilinks. As it stands, it looks like it should be merged to the History section. Also, views of those who see globalization as still possible to reverse should be noted. Some refs: [7], [8], this ref in particular disputes that claim, this discusses this plus economic globalization. And Google Books shows many more positions on that. You should also mention deglobalization, which may be a better title for the section.
  • Debate Over Exploitation Due to Economic Globalization: 1) no need for capitalization in title; I'd also suggest shortening it 2) you should start with a brief overview of exploitation, before discussing propsoed solutions 3) I'd restructure the section into a) positive effects b) negative effects c) potential solutions; and I'd try to avoid the use of the word "exploitation" in section headings
  • Effects on world cultures: 1) first para is totally unreferenced 2) it is also totally unlinked (missing blue links) 3) it is "McDonalization" not "MacDonalization" 4) this section, so far, fails to convince me it is about the economic globalization, rather than just globalization. Economic gloalizization is certainly changing our cultures, but this section is not really explaining how. Some sources: seems very useful, [9], this offers a good overview of the difference between economic and cultural globalization
  • you still seem to be missing a section that clearly explains how economic globalization is different from "just globalization". You may create it easily from (duplicating) part of the lead, such as the first sentence, and stating that "X defines economic globalization as... Y as....". "Compared to other definitions of globalization, those definitions stress the importance of the commodity markets, labor markets, and capital markets" (don't just copy that sentence, this is a tentative suggestion that you'll need to reference, it is just to show you what I am looking for). Another good approach would be to distinguish between economic and cultural globalization (see ref I gave you above). If it takes you an hour or two to review the definitions and create a proper section on this, that's fine, take your time. This is important. This does not need to be a long section, one paragraph will do just fine, provided you find the sources for it (and I think you already have most if not all of the sources needed).
  • general: insufficient ref density as mentioned above; many references are missing pages. Clean-up of the references is needed (why is the link in Lawrence inactive, why are there two different references for the same source like Shangquan?)

Once you address those issues, you will find the Good Article review much easier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"* general: insufficient ref density as mentioned above; many references are missing pages. Clean-up of the references is needed (why is the link in Lawrence inactive, why are there two different references for the same source like Shangquan?)"

I don't know what you mean by this? Tyod (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that there should be one reference per sentence, a density which is not achieved, as I see one reference for every few sentences, often a bit randomly. Second, I mean that many references are missing pages; those should be added. There is also a need for some standardization, compare Lawrence ref to others, or both Shangquan ref to one another, to see what I mean. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that statement in link citation #11 is quite vague and could be debated and it's not really needed in the description of globalization. Also, globalization was still apparent during the time period between WWI and WWII, it was just segmented by ally powers. Either way, I think the overall History section is quite solid. Tyod (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a solid start, but can use more expansion. You do not have to write as much as is in history of globalization (and that article is a poor role-model), but some expansion would be useful. And of course, various small things I pointed above need to fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Economic globalization/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll give this article a review either tonight or tomorrow, and gradually look through to see what things may be modified. I'll do the best I can on my end. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First things first, the issues brought up by Piotrus are worth addressing, so do those and I'll continue the review from there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

hi Wizardman! Thanks for taking the time to review this article. We've addressed some of the issues brought up by Piotrus. Do you have any further suggestions? Thanks Kas205 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman! I would definitely love to hear some feedback on what constitute the article in being a good one. Tyod (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I noticed with the article:

  • "Whereas globalization is centered around the diminution of international trade regulations as well as tariffs, taxes, and other impediments that suppresses global trade." This reads like a sentence fragment to me unless I'm misreading it.
  • "People residing in an early civilization in Mesopotamia (Sumer)" this can be modified to simply note that Sumerians came up with this system; since there's wikilinks available we don't need to worry about adding in meanings.
  • "the other side of the world.However," add space after punctuation.
  • "in the late 1920s[10]" period at end of sentence.
  • "world wide globalization of the economy" worldwide's one word.
  • "economic globalization is an irreversible trend due to the fact the" fact that the
  • "nations' various economic policies have suppress the impetuous for their own economies" suppressed; also, impetuous what? a word's missing there.
  • "states has been show in the past" shown
  • "Shanquan's theory of economic globalization as a primary" primarily
  • "The information is represented in the chart below." self-references are to be avoided.
  • "Despite many analysts concern" analysts' concerns
  • "[21] )." not sure what the extra parenthesis/period goes to.
  • make sure there's no spaces between footnotes (.[25] instead of . [25]), which is a problem in the effects on world cultures section
  • "** internationalization ** " remove the stars.
  • The many issues in the notes section (page additions, dead links, etc.) need to be addressed.

I'll put this on hold, and once theses issues are fixed I will re-read the article and see if I have any other issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And I am glad to see you have assessed this article as B-class. GA is not out of reach, indeed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me know when this is done so i can do a second-read through. I know you guys have a deadline on getting it to GA and my week looks to be very busy so the sooner the better. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

most of the issues have been addressed if you want to do a second read through thanks Kas205 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please get back to us with what else we may want to add to get to GA status. Rsg20 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's my second run though of comments. Here's the clerical changes:

  • "Economic globalization comprises the globalization" comprises of
  • "According to China's prominent economist Gao Shanquan" perhaps just say economist or Chinese economist. If he was that prominent I'd imagine he'd have at least an article on here.
  • "Further, in his recent book entitled Globalization: Power, Authority, and Legitimacy in Late Modernity," Furthermore, and anything after that can be cut; it's in the reference so not needed right in the body.
  • "and references International Studies professor Peter J. Katzenstein accessing" you mean assessing?
  • "due to the symbiotic nature of globalization and regionalism, so does the conflict between economic regionalism and multiculturalism." this feels like it's missing a word or something; not sure how to fix this one.
  • The first paragraph in the positive section has a rather long quote. Try and put it in your own words, since a couple words they use are a bit iffy. If you can't then I'll let this one go.
  • "must give voice to developing countries" a voice
  • "There is a need for social respect of all persons worldwide. The Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean suggests that in order to ensure such social respect, the United Nations should expand its agenda to work more rigorously with international lending agencies. Despite their title, international lending agencies tend to be nation based." would like a source for this, since it's a separate thought and I doubt the refs before or after go to that.
  • "WWII, where as internationalization began" spell out and link World War II; also, whereas is one word.
  • "In 2006, 233 of 280 or well over half of the" 'or well over half' can be removed.
  • "The Body Shop, a British ecologically conscious cosmetic company, represents the process of McDonaldization working in all directions" how? expand on that a bit.
  • The page needed tags in the notes remain unaddressed.
  • Reference #5 is a deadlink, so a new source needs to be found.
  • Reference #2 has an unreliable source tag on it. either prove it's reliable or replace the source.
  • Make sure that everything in the first run through was addressed. Almost everything was but I found a couple things that weren't, mostly what I listed above.

And here's a few things for discussion I thought up. These are not necessarily actionable, and is more for further improvements, though I would at least like them looked over before I close this:

  • Could the evolution of the BRIC countries he added in? they seem to be a major result of this to me, but I could be off base here in seeing this as an addition possibility.
  • You note in the lead that the globalization has begun happening for the past several hundred years, yet the history section jumps from Sumer to the 20th century. Certainly some globalization evolution during the age of exploration could be noted?
  • The Negative effects and solutions section certainly has solutions, but I'm seeing little in the way of negative effects. I'm sure there are a couple economists out there that are against this that you can cite and adding in their points. It's not quite biased, but it's enough that it caused me to think it over.

That's everything I have. Once the above concerns are addressed, then I'll feel comfortable passing the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The assignment has ended, and I don't expect any further student editing as the motivation (grade) is gone (although it would be a nice surprise). The article has been improved from stub to B-class. Thanks for you assistance, hopefully somebody else can take the points above and improve the article further! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay; I'll leave it on hold until month's end just to see if anyone takes it up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing review as failed, though it is close to a GA should anyone want to pick it up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Help

For two days I have been trying to log in and make some changes and it won't let me log in, yet gmail lets me log in on their page? What should I do? Bruce b 71.60.41.94 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You probably forgot your password, although I'd need a more detailed description of the problem to be able to help you. You can also ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr! My password works fine on gmail. Something hates me on wikipedia. I tried both browsers but they still wont work? I have a paragraph to add and some sources to add. It's not about my effort. I have had one issue after another and I feel bad I can't make the difference to get us a better status. Bruce b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.94 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys, Added some more to the culture section and am looking for more articles and citations. Don't want to stop the work until we make this thing improve status. Let me know if you need anything. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you see my comments on your section, and additional sources, above? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr, I used one of your sources to add more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.94 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I cleaned up some of the issues in my culture section. Just FYI. There were some citation formatting issues and another fomatting issue. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Localisation (economics)

Localisation (economics) redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slightly more inclusive?

I really like this article and there is much to commend it. I wonder how you would feel if a few sentences in section 1 (history) were made just a little more inclusive: Current: "By the early 1900s, it was rare to come across a town that was not influenced by foreign markets—whether it be in labor, prices, or any other policy of business.[7] With advances in ship building technology and the inventions of the railroad and telephone, communication with other parts of the country and world was readily available." "The country" sounds like the writer has a specific country in mind (America?) I suggest: "villages that were not..." and "with other parts of one's country and world...." How do others feel about this minor alteration? Gabarker (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Go ahead! I was thinking of writing something similar, based on Hobsbawm's "Age of Empire". bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Some copyediting assistance needed to clean up the citations and bibliography for this article. See WP:REFS. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not quantify and state the rank of the biggest tax shelters?

Re [10], @Bobrayner:? EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If somebody wants to quantify how much is held in which tax shelter - and rank them - that could be quite tempting, although we need to bear in mind that different places have differently nuanced taxes, so there are lots of different tax havens rather than a single hierarchy. (For instance, some would argue that the Netherlands is a tax haven; some wouldn't). This also overlaps with other industrial policies, tax breaks, disclosure rules &c.
However, this edit wasn't removing anything like that - it was removing hypothetical tax revenue calculated by a campaign group using completely arbitrary numbers for interest and tax rate. bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we keep the fact that they are the largest tax shelter without the questionable WP:CK math showing it? EllenCT (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You mean the bit which wasn't in the source at all? bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I also object to [11]. EllenCT (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Yetman's comment on this article

Dr. Yetman has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


A very comprehensive and thorough article.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Yetman has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Michael B Devereux & James Yetman, 2014. "Globalisation, pass-through and the optimal policy response to exchange rates," BIS Working Papers 450, Bank for International Settlements.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic globalization. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic globalization. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economic globalization. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_globalization/Archive_1&oldid=1234971729"