Talk:Neoclassical Schools (1871-today): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner
imported>Nick Gardner
Line 21: Line 21:
It would seem a pity to delete an article into which so much work has gone, but one must sympathise with the previous comment: it is probably fully intelligible only to those already familiar with the concepts referred to.
It would seem a pity to delete an article into which so much work has gone, but one must sympathise with the previous comment: it is probably fully intelligible only to those already familiar with the concepts referred to.


I suggest that we review the situation when the article on the History of Economic Thought (which at present draws no distinction between classical and neoclassical) has been revised.
I suggest that we review the situation when the article on the History of Economic Thought (which at present has no "neoclassical" heading, but covers some of the same ground under the heading of "The Marginalist Revolution") has been revised.


[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 05:32, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 05:32, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 06:01, 20 October 2007


Article Checklist for "Neoclassical Schools (1871-today)"
Workgroup category or categories Economics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by J. R. Campos 02:07, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





A puzzlement

Though I am interested in economics, and listen to Marketplace on NPR every evening, I cannot make any sense of this article -- I'm thinking it needs both a more general introduction and clearer organization -- many too many subheads! -- Just a thought from a Literature prof! Russell Potter 22:52, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

The scope of the article

The opening sentence suggests that the article includes everything that happened in economics since 1871. The inaccuracy of that statement becomes evident only when the reader has scanned the text.

It would seem a pity to delete an article into which so much work has gone, but one must sympathise with the previous comment: it is probably fully intelligible only to those already familiar with the concepts referred to.

I suggest that we review the situation when the article on the History of Economic Thought (which at present has no "neoclassical" heading, but covers some of the same ground under the heading of "The Marginalist Revolution") has been revised.

Nick Gardner 05:32, 20 October 2007 (CDT)