Talk:History of economics

message: The section "Biblical (NT) economic thought" needs to be cleaned up. I fixed the dots, but it's unclear if all of it is relevant or not. I any case, it's a mess to read. /130.235.57.231 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been "bold" and deleted it. It's connection to the history of economic thought is tenuous in the extreme, and is at most worth a footnote, not the first section after the introduction. BrendanH 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move to History of economics —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move survey

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*support Septentrionalis 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Oppose:  That article is mostly about not history but present. Significantly, the JEL classification codes#Schools of economic thought and methodology JEL: B Subcategories don't have any category for history of neoclassical economics beyond 1925.  Why?  Because beyond that point, it's now, not "history". --Thomasmeeks 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to merge [[Economic schools of thought]] into this article

message: I want to open up the talk on merging Economic schools of thought with the history of economics articles. Here's the reason. I think that if you used the title "History of economic thought" then there's nothing to distinguish the two. If there is something, what is it? JEL which people keep talking about distinguishes Economic history from Schools of thought, but of course the former is about how economies (rather than economic theories) have evolved through history. Someone suggested above that if it's a current a current school of thought (e.g. neoclassicism) then it ain't history. It's present. Well, I personally don't believe in an End of history and to be fair schools of thought that may be predominant today have themselves had a history which on an encyclopedia deserves some unified explanation. Feel free to reply, agree, denounce what I've said, etc. Wikidea 02:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a merge, but I'd favour History of economic thought as the title, with a redirect from History of economics. This is the field description commonly used in economics, and that should be the decisive factor. Schools of thought is a different kind of classification, since multiple schools coexist at ohe time, and several remain viable today  JQ 10:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More merging 

message: Hello, I am going ahead with the merger soon for this page into the History of economic thought. I wanted first to ask, can anyone identify what there is on this page, that isn't already covered on the HoET page, that ought to be? For example the section on pre-modern economic thought, there's some stuff about "Wáng Ānshí" (among others) who I admit I have never heard of before. I've already added a link to the main page of his in the HoET article, which (with the greatest respect) to him, should be enough - it seems there isn't much about what he actually thought you see, and the same goes for one or two of the other bits of frenetic info there and about. Please post your thoughts. Wikidea 13:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you, I've never heard of the Chinese or Indian writers listed here, and I don't think the space they are given here is consistent with WP:WEIGHT, but it would be a pity to lose this material. Maybe we could break out a separate article on premodern economic thought where more of a global approach would be appropriate. JQ 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the pages