Talk:List of important publications in economics

message: The text bellow was the entry of health economics. Though it is very detailed, probably not all the publications in it fit in the list. One should note that other entries have publications by Smith, Marx and that league.
In order to allow future use of this reference, I moved it to the talk page.
It seems that this few publications should be selected from this reference for the health economics entry in the list itself. APH 10:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Health economics]] 

message: Culyer, A.J. (2005) The Dictionary of Health Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Description: A book that reveals in plain English the concepts and methods used by health economists. Very accessible to non-specialists and students.
McPake, B., Kumaranayake, L. and Normand, C. (2002) Health Economics – An International Perspective, Routledge: London.
Description: A UK text which provides an introduction to health economics in less technical detail.
Rice, T. (1998) The Economics of Health Reconsidered, Health Administrative Press: Chicago.
Description: An alternative text which takes market failure in health care as a starting point.
Phua, K.L. (2005) Health Economics: An Introduction for Biomedical and Other Health-Related Professionals.
Description: A book designed to introduce the subject to health professionals and other interested readers with little or no background in economics.
New book, March 2015:  Chester, David Harold: Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationizing About How Our Social System Works
Description This is listed here not because it is new but because it is different in the basic approach. It  is original, and it avoids all of the inexact wordy descriptions of the past. Here you will find the raw conversion to science of this past pseudo-scientific subject. Macrocompassion (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory texts 

message: List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. --Bduke 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards in all the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls]] articles

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination) Kappa 08:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related AFD 

message: Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. --Bduke 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The criteria for entries

message: Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories of important publications 

message: I suggest we list these in chronological order, earliest first. Also, I'm not sure what the stuff above is about. OptimistBen (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing order?

message: What, currently, is the most popular and/or authoritative textbook in economics, or microeconomics? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question for people who watch this page 

message: This article should add a section specifically for Classical Economics (which I suppose would be merged or a subsection of "Political Economy"). There are many publications from classical economists/philosophers, such as Say, Malthus, Mill, etc. who have had a profound affect on the study of economics, whether they were right or wrong. 24630 (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical Economics

message: Seems to me a page about important publications in economics that doesn't mention Friedman, Von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard is a bit biased...  But that's just my two cents   CS /10/03/2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.15.61 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: An unbalanced unfair page

message: In the history of economics, the three most important books (because they were used as the fundamental texts by consecutive generations) were:
#Wealth of nations, by Adam Smith
#Principles of Political Economy, by John Stuart Mill
#Principles of Economics, by Alfred Marshall
To this, two other books that should be added are:
#Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, by David Ricardo
#Foundations of Economic Analysis, by Paul Samuelson
Ricardo set the deductive, abstract tone that both JS Mill and Marshall incorporated, and Samuelson presented the comparative statics approach that characterizes the way economics is presented at the graduate level, even today.
Surprisingly, neither JS Mill nor Marshall are mentioned. They should be.
Any arguments about this?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bit of a potpourri

message: Article needs to add the other side.
Hayek and Friedman to Start
I would do it but I don't really know how to.
D6stringer (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Left 

message: No citations supporting importance of texts. No citations for the summaries given, either. Perhaps this article should be deleted? --superioridad (discusión) 03:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor article 

message: A perennial issue on this and similar pages is how to set criteria for the list. I have carefully considered existing guidelines and tried to craft a broad set of policies that satisfy them. I have posted it on the Science pearls talk page. I would welcome your comments. Of course, these guidelines are not intended to be binding for any particular page, but might help you choose your own selection criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed inclusion criteria 

message: I propose we add Cournot and Jevons. If I get agreement, I can do the work of adding them.JoelDick (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Additions 

message: Tagging the article POV today because of several previous notes in the talk section arguing bias and
noting omitted authors (e.g. Hayek), the tendency towards books instead of journal articles,
my noticing that the Behavioral and Experimental Economics sections read like one sentence
book advertisements, and the omission of Charles Plott and Vernon Smith's work in the Experimental Economics section.
Smith won a Nobel-memorial prize in 2002 for being a pioneer of human-subject laboratory experimentation in market economics and in particular
demonstrating the success of the competitive equilibrium model, aka The Law of Supply and Demand, which assumes individual rationality in explaining market price patterns 
and efficiency of market allocation.  The 2002 Nobel memorial prize was shared with Kahneman, whose lab work 
had a different topic -- individuals' departures from rational behavior in Behavioral Economics -- so why mention Kahneman in the list but not Smith?. 
Charles Plott, who also has numerous publications involving laboratory experiments in economics, together with Vernon Smith co-edited a large volume, The Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, that took about a decade to produce and drew in dozens of contributed chapters from other practitioners across almost every specialty (not simply markets, or game theory, or individual choice
but all of these, and more) in which the evolving laboratory methodologies in Economics had been applied. Not mentioned.  
Now some people might say "it is great that you discovered our page, we can't maintain it all, so just edit your changes in!".  But there's a problem.
Artificial scarcity and unappointed trusts are created by lists such as these.  While often useful as a marketing
hustle, the premise that only a few entries can be "important" in each category creates the artificial scarcity. The ordering of entries
can also create an impression that some specialties are more important or central than others.
In truth, many articles shaped these fields.  The "unappointed trust" is the idea that we, the editors of the list,
become "trustees" who sit in judgement of an entire field and can somehow come to a consensus on important works in an entire field, when we are mostly unqualified
to do so and the field is still alive and evolving, so can not be captured by a few interested reviewers or the occasional
passing volunteer (an argument I have to credit in part to F. Hayek, 1945, The Use of Knowledge in Society).  The difference between this and factual
wikipedia topics is that we are expressing an opinion (which publications are most important; and as a corollary, which careers of living researchers are the most important) rather than a matter of facts or definitions on which there is substantial agreement (what is the Slutsky equation?).
I think one of the ideas behind wikipedia is that one person should not do "too much", so my contribution will be limited to this notice here
and I will leave future discussion to other editors and enthusiasts.
 
204.93.123.146 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks Neutral Point of View - and perhaps impossible in principle? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of important publications in economics. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040625152156/http://www.econ.utah.edu/ehrbar/akmc.htm to http://www.econ.utah.edu/ehrbar/akmc.htm
*Added  tag to http://publications.worldbank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_id=7014177
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040717023557/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should it also be included as an important publication? It made an impact in political economy.
Sammartinlai (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation