Talk:Economic history

message: I propose to merge Cliometrics, which is the quantitative study of (economic) history, into the economic history article.  The cliometrics article is much more developed, but economic history is the broader concept.  Also, an observation:  the current economic history article contains much more about the history of economic history than about the topical content or discoveries of economic history.  The Cliometrics article's content would provide needed meat to the economic history article. Comments and ideas for alternatives welcome, of course. Jeremy Tobacman 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, logically, shouldn't econometrics be merged with economics and biostatistics with biology? I think cliometrics deserves its own article. Are we lacking space on Wikipedia? - Duribald 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, of course not.  Jeremy Tobacman 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, cliometrics should publish their own articles.Cj1447 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

text: No, expand this article rather then get rid of Cliometrics which deserves its own. Note also that "Cliometricians" tend to have their conferences, discussion lists, etc. radek 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that cliometrics is not a favourite of many economic historians. It's not a universal method. - Duribald 10:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, ultimately the best structure would be a much-expanded version of the economic history article, with a section on Cliometrics, which links to a full, separate article on Cliometrics.  Lacking expertise to write the balanced article on economic history, I thought-- and still think-- the merger would be an improvement for now.  Jeremy Tobacman 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one. — LlywelynII 05:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[Cliometrics]] into this page 

message: I've made a rudimentary start on this by shoving in a few categories. I would appreciate it if people could fill it out with material they can add (even if by cutting and pasting!) Wikidea 10:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting economic history into the page 

message: I have done a light clear up of this page, which needs some more serious work done on it to make it acceptable, including proper referencing. 31 March 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.79.132 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A few headings, such as "Economic history and economics" and "Economic history and capitalism", could be shortened or combined to create more a coherent order to the page. Overall, however, the article seems well organized. Heykay0 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: The current definition is atrocious. Economic history is not the study of economics, as the recently edited definition claims. What was wrong with the earlier one used here? I vote a return to "Economic history is the study of how economic phenomena evolved from a historical perspective." Or perhaps "economic history is the study of economies or economic phenomena in the past." Signed: an LSE economic historian, 13:48, 17 June 2011.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.63.71 (talk)  
:Well, the first one is academic gobbledygook () and the second one is an actual and appropriate definition in clear English, so we should probably go with that one. — LlywelynII 05:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I don't think this should be on the economic history page. Looking at the authors mentioned in the articles it seems to be primarily a social analysis of the history of a particular type of economic system. There's a pretty big methodological gap and difference in subject between the two.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samael92 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: methodology gap--are new methods not allowed? is methodology locked in place? Oh no, says Galambos, citing Schumpter and many others, it's a matter of creative destruction of old models that are no longer competitive. Wikipedia goes with the experts, as in his keynote address at the 38th Annual Economic and Business History Society Conference in 2013. That makes for a pretty authoritative case.  Now let's name some scholars who think the history of capitalism does NOT belong under "economic history." Rjensen (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the argument I am making. Methodology is not 'locked in place', but if you use the tools and techniques of a discipline, in the area of that discipline, and then claim it belongs to another then you are sorely mistaken. Capitalism has been dealt with at length in economic history; it is hardly a 'new movement'. The new courses referred to are primarily concerned with 'narrative' history with elements of sociology. Economic history concerns itself with explaining why things occurred using economic theory and quantifying impacts/influences through econometric analysis. These do not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samael92 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "you are sorely mistaken" --- says who??? Galambos says the reverse. Wiki editors'  job is not to make up the rules but to report what is going on among scholars. Fact is, "economic history" has had multiple methods over the years, and in other countries like Britain, Japan, France & Germany. Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's set aside my doubts, assume that Galambos is correct, and say that this is a new subfield of economic history. Why is it deserving of special status? I see no link to the 'History of Communism'. I see no link to the 'History of the Industrial Revolution'. I see no link to the 'Great Divergence'. This is extremely selective and I suspect it's because people seem to conflate the study of economics with the study of capitalism. Samael92 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'History of Capitalism' 

message: This probably is the most common use within our academic journals and other sources. It's what the academics get paid for doing. It is not what our readers are looking for when they want "economic history". They're looking for something closer to economic history of the world. (E.g., I was directed here by a misplaced link heading Trade#History which was obviously attempting to point at coverage of the topic, not the modern academic field studying the topic.) Which one wins in a fight like that? or is this a conditional thing where we ignore economic history of the world until it's in better shape? — LlywelynII 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the question? The hatnote looks clear enough: "This article is about the academic field. For actual economic history, see Economic history of the world. For the history of economics itself, see History of economic thought." Do you have a change to suggest? Darx9url (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Responding to the RFC. I have to agree with Darx, above: the way to fix this sort of problem is with a hatnote, and there already has a good one (which I note is largely due to you; thanks). I assume, however, that you're asking which of the two should be the primary topic, and whether this page should be renamed economic history (academic discipline) or some such. To my mind that's not really necessary, since economic history of the world is a perfectly reasonable title, and, IMO, a more accurate one at that. Since it's just one click away, I don't see a need for re-naming this article. Also, while it's not conclusive, this page has more than twice as many page views as economic history of the world, which suggests that a majority of people reading it are, in fact, looking for this topic. Anaxial (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

text: * Responding to RFC - to me the title means the academic field, just as the phrases History or Military History mean the academic field.  It doesn't get more specific until a title says "of" to indicate a product or particular target of use, such as 'history of europe' or 'history of  as in history of the world.  Markbassett (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Darx and Anaxial. Actually, we have no clear evidence one way or the other on what readers "really" are looking for. To get that info we would need info on their search history in Wiki articles. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

text: It is likely the article was linked to without the editor double checking the contents of the page. Obviously the link needs to be fixed. Additionally it might be desirable to rename this article 'study of economic history', and have 'economic history' a disambiguate page. That way any casual link to 'economic history' would have to be fixed for ambiguity.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: PRIMARYTOPIC

message: Dr. O Grada has reviewed history&oldid=721494522 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. O Grada has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Morgan Kelly & Cormac O Grada, 2014. "Speed under Sail, 1750-1850," Working Papers 201410, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. O Grada's comment on this article 

message: The article talks about how economic history is rich in other countries but fail to talk about the United States as much. There is economic history that should be talked about as the economics of the US has changed over time. I would like to see more on the history of the US economy. I have found that the link "Economic History Society Annual Conference 2010" does not work and looks to be outdated. I have found a better more up to date website.  The links seem to be unbiased.Mcanessa1 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 2601:18A:C500:F4E0:4432:597A:698E:6A49 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: The article starts off very well with an introduction to what an economic history is, and then dives deeper into the the economic history of the world. The statements in the article are supported by reliable sources such as government sources. There are graphs from the sources to prove the point. Also, in the talk section people are talking about how the tone of the article is very neutral and fact based — Qshablog (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating Wikipedia 

message: Since this article written things changed. History of capitalism has got a specific journal. The difference between historical and economical methods causes a conflict between historians and economists. This conflict should be referred in this article. I suggest the author to refer Flandreau's "border crossing" to update this page. As I see the author knows the prominent names, so no need to suggest more, but if necessary please ask in this page. 88.209.32.73 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is being written every day, just as new journals pop up and disappear every day. Nothing special to do. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is about an academic field, it must be updated based on the changes in academia. 88.209.32.73 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of capitalism is now a more central approach