Jump to content

Talk:Alfred Weber

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 8 September 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Economics}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please explain

It would help to explain terms like PC (perfect competion?) and MDC (more developed country?)69.19.14.18 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliography of the the works of Max Weber, the sociologist and Alfred's brother, has mistakenly been appended to this article on Alfred Weber. SHOULD BE CORRECTED! RSS2016 (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

works of Max Weber

The works of Max Weber have been appended to the end of this article, in a box, as if they are the works of Alfred Weber. ??? I don't understand why they are included. It causes confusion on the part of the reader. DlronW (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attraction and repulsion: why include?

Two questions, from the section on least cost theory: Should Luc-Normand Tellier's 1985 work really be part of the Alfred Weber article? And if the answer is yes, then IMO it's important to explain exactly why attraction and repulsion are relevant to industries' choices of location. People who don't understand industry very well are the ones most likely to be reading this section. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling: deagglomeration or deglomeration?

Both are logical and readable so I don't care. But it would be better within this article to settle on one or the other. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the way Weber described it?

Weber's name has been attached to the theoretical material being discussed here, which is only right. But this article is about him specifically - his biography - and not about his theories in general. It seems to me that in a biographical article, any detailed discussions of a person's work should be restricted to their own version of that work, presented in the same way they themselves presented it (perhaps simplified but not updated), and ignoring newer developments (giving a mention that such developments exist, but no more).

I can't tell whether this is the case for this article, because it doesn't say which page of Weber's publications these ideas are coming from. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]