This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Globalization This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGlobalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization

It's not clear to me that the following are key concepts for globalization:

• Corporatism
• Consumerism
• Economic development
• International development

To me they are one or two steps removed, not specifically related to globalization. Other perspectives? Thanks,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)10:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see all of these as ideological "drivers" of globalization. I included these in an attempt to add more links that were not about negative reactions to globalization. I'm not so strongly attached to any that I will argue for continued inclusion in the "key" concepts list. However, some aspect of "development" ideology should be included in the "key" list, in my opinion.Meclee (talk)20:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the layout tweak to this template. I have to admit, though, that I'm not a fan of the top bar as used here. Any other opinions on this? Kind regards,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)10:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current set of abbreviations, in my opinion, goes a bit too far. The editor who complained about the "huge template" was referring to bytes rather than inches, I think. All the abbreviation only makes the template larger in bytes. Can we go back to the way it was? Regards,Meclee (talk)13:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Meclee. I'll step it back a bit & see if that helps. Kind regards,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)14:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some deletions might be in order. I see some rather technical terms that aren't really useful out-of-context, e.g.Planetary boundaries,Supranational,Time–space compression,Transnationalism. If they aren't already, these should be worked into the context provided by theOutline of globalization and taken off the nav box.Proto-globalization is included in theHistory of globalization, so it could go, etc. More refining rather than more abbreviation is warranted, I think. RegardsMeclee (talk)16:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the template with the image (right) included. Even though it may make it 'large', I think it adds something... Other views? Thanks,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)15:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rollback. I didn't care for the pic at first, but it grew on me. However, few other nav boxes have one, so it does stand out like a sore thumb, making an easy target for complaints. I think it's a matter of whether we want to suffer the slings and arrows. ;)Meclee (talk)16:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld, for going though all the changes (and un-changes)! Template looks good. Regards,Meclee (talk)19:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful and timely to outline and discuss criteria for inclusion in the groupNotable scholars in this template on globalization. Two key criteria, in my view, should be:

• Scholar clearly meets Wikipedia'sWP:SCHOLAR general notability guidelines
• Scholar's published works on globalization have been recognized and documented as notable byreliable sources

Beyond these foundational criteria, a couple of additional suggestions:

• Historical scholars who today are closely identified with this subject may be considered
• Authors who may not be 'scholars' in the classic sense, but who are clearly notablewriters about globalization should be included, I think

It may be that not all scholars currently listed here meet the criteria outlined above; and it may be that others not currently listed merit being added at some point when these (and/or other) criteria are satisfied. I would suggest further that if including (or not) a scholar is in question, doubt or dispute, please discuss on this talk page.

Other perspectives & suggestions? Thanks,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)12:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should addTheodore Levitt? Regards,Meclee (talk)20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DASonnenfeld:'s inclusion proposals sound reasonable.@Meclee: yes Levitt should be include as he wrote a lot about globalization. I was thinkingRaj Patel might qualify as well? On a different note, should there be a section for notable organisations and movements such asWorld Social Forum andGlobal justice movement?Jonpatterns (talk)22:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Patel is more of a speaker, with only a couple of published books. I don't have an objection to him, but I think our article on him ought to be cleaned up and expanded before listing on the nav. We have categories for notable organizations. I, personally, think the nav is a bit overstocked as it is, but again I will not object if others wish to add it.Meclee (talk)21:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most recently added:Antonia Juhasz. May be notable, but perhaps more as ananti-globalization activist than as a scholar. I don't see broad recognition of her contributions to scholarship on globalization. Other views? Thanks,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)01:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juhasz' main scholarly contributions seem to be in the area of criticalpetroleum politics, not so much onglobalization,per se. Since her contributions to scholarship on the latter do not seem clearly notable at this time, I'm removing her entry in the 'Notable Scholars' section of thisnavigation box for now. Thanks,DA Sonnenfeld (talk)13:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-founder of the journalsReview of International Political Economy andGlobalizations, seems a notable absence. Regards,Goldsztajn (talk)23:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• NA-Class Globalization pages
• NA-importance Globalization pages