Talk:Neoclassical Schools (1871-today): Difference between revisions
imported>Russell Potter (A puzzlement) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
== A puzzlement == | == 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 | 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! [[User:Russell Potter|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. | |||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 05:32, 20 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:04, 11 November 2007
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)