This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic history article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mcanessa1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to query this first statement:
That would be described as historical economics. The Economic History I'm familiar with is simply the historical study of economic activity - production, trade, growth and decline of industries, government policy etc. The history of economic theories may be dealt with, but this isn't the same at all. Mattley (Chattley) 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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!) Wik idea 10:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dr. O Grada has reviewed history&oldid=721494522 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The entry has virtually nothing on past and present controversies in the field, e.g. living standards during the Industrial Revolution, why the Industrial Revolution (and modern growth) happened, the economic history of US slavery, the economic contribution of the railroads, etc.
The entry should include some historiographical references other than Boldizzoni (which is rather controversial), e.g.
William N. Parker (ed.): Economic History and the Modern Economist, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1986.
R. W. Fogel and G. Elton, Which Road to the the Past? Two Views of History. Yale UP, 1983.
Symposium on the future of economic history in Journal of Economic History vol. 75[4] 2015, with contributions by Ran Ambramitsky, Naomi Lamoreaux, William Collins, and Kris Mitchener.
I would not include Merton Miller in the list of Nobel Prize-winning economic historians: he would not even see himself as primarily an economic historian.
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:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 12:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
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. [1] The links seem to be unbiased. Mcanessa1 ( talk) 20:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Michael Canessa
"I would like to see more on the history of the US economy" Read the main article Economic history of the United States. Dimadick ( talk) 09:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
The article seems well informed and the links seem correct. Marlism ( talk) 04:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I re-arranged and re-structured material on the page, which had become unwieldy and difficult to follow. I also corrected some obvious mistakes and added some citations. I have not written any new material here, but rather tried to make the best of the material already written by others. This page still needs a thorough revision of its contents; comments about this page by Cormac Ó Gráda from 2016 remain unaddressed. Signed -- Chris Colvin (Queen's University Belfast), 19 April 2020.
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).
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)
Economic history 115.147.24.152 ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic history article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mcanessa1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to query this first statement:
That would be described as historical economics. The Economic History I'm familiar with is simply the historical study of economic activity - production, trade, growth and decline of industries, government policy etc. The history of economic theories may be dealt with, but this isn't the same at all. Mattley (Chattley) 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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!) Wik idea 10:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dr. O Grada has reviewed history&oldid=721494522 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The entry has virtually nothing on past and present controversies in the field, e.g. living standards during the Industrial Revolution, why the Industrial Revolution (and modern growth) happened, the economic history of US slavery, the economic contribution of the railroads, etc.
The entry should include some historiographical references other than Boldizzoni (which is rather controversial), e.g.
William N. Parker (ed.): Economic History and the Modern Economist, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1986.
R. W. Fogel and G. Elton, Which Road to the the Past? Two Views of History. Yale UP, 1983.
Symposium on the future of economic history in Journal of Economic History vol. 75[4] 2015, with contributions by Ran Ambramitsky, Naomi Lamoreaux, William Collins, and Kris Mitchener.
I would not include Merton Miller in the list of Nobel Prize-winning economic historians: he would not even see himself as primarily an economic historian.
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:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 12:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
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. [1] The links seem to be unbiased. Mcanessa1 ( talk) 20:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Michael Canessa
"I would like to see more on the history of the US economy" Read the main article Economic history of the United States. Dimadick ( talk) 09:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
The article seems well informed and the links seem correct. Marlism ( talk) 04:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I re-arranged and re-structured material on the page, which had become unwieldy and difficult to follow. I also corrected some obvious mistakes and added some citations. I have not written any new material here, but rather tried to make the best of the material already written by others. This page still needs a thorough revision of its contents; comments about this page by Cormac Ó Gráda from 2016 remain unaddressed. Signed -- Chris Colvin (Queen's University Belfast), 19 April 2020.
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).
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)
Economic history 115.147.24.152 ( talk) 01:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)