![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | On 11 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Dismal Science. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
According to Thomas Malthus:
Is this true, and if so, which essay? -- Beland 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
eh... shouldn't the Expansion Request be part of the article itself? I'm too much of a newbie to be sure, but it seems pretty weird to request an expanded talk page...? -- Oolong 11:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8401269&fsrc=nwlbtwfree I thought Carlyle first anointed economics the “dismal science” because liberal economists insisted that American slaves be free to sell their labour in the marketplace like everyone else. It was a debate on labour economics if I'm not wrong. Kendirangu 11:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The use of "another" in the first sentence is somewhat jarring. It feels like we've entered into the middle of a discussion -- or this paragraph has been pulled up from a later position.
Undoing a revert. The two parties need to discuss what is intended, and I believe the use is proper. U am, however, not a Carlysle expert. So, the reverted might be correct. Julzes ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, this is one of the least intelligible articles I've ever read on wikipedia. Granted I know little about the subject at hand, but even then, I should be able to understand what it is we're talking about here. Context please, don't assume everybody is familiar with the subject matter... this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.45.47.18 ( talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I tried to replace the choppy small subsections near the top of the article with more of a textual narrative flow. The slavery connection is a semi-strange historical quirk, but has nothing to do with how the phrase is commonly used today, and so should not be elevated to the lead paragraph. AnonMoos ( talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever Carlyle originally meant, the phrase gained traction because of the doctrines of Victorian "political economy", according to which it was often claimed to be uneconomical and inefficient to use government money to alleviate lower-class misery (though it was of course perfectly proper to use government funds to protect the property of the upper classes). Variations and developments on such views included the idea that all or almost all forms of charity or "relief" had a "pauperizing" effect of creating dependency, the maxim that the condition of the best-off man on "relief" always had to be worse than the condition of the worst-off employed man, or otherwise workers would resign their jobs en masse to live on handouts, strict moralistic and other criteria separating the "deserving" and "undeserving poor", etc. etc. ad nauseam. In the eyes of some, political economy was only separated by a thin line from outright misanthropy (such as Ebenezer Scrooge's aphorisms). The influence of such political economy ideas had their effect in inhibiting the British from organizing truly timely and large-scale effective aid to meet the needs created by the great Irish famine [1]... AnonMoos ( talk) 07:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The dismal science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 01:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The dismal science → Dismal Science – Dismal Science is how Carlyle wrote the term in the original essay. It is also how the term is given in both The Nuttall Encyclopædia and The Carlyle Encyclopedia (2004) as well as https://www.definitions.net/definition/Dismal%20Science and surely other sources. Many websites render it in lowercase ( https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp uses both), but as one of Carlyle's philosophical concepts it should rather be rendered as he conceived it. Sinopecynic ( talk) 23:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or "schools" of thought and practice, and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name."SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | On 11 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Dismal Science. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
According to Thomas Malthus:
Is this true, and if so, which essay? -- Beland 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
eh... shouldn't the Expansion Request be part of the article itself? I'm too much of a newbie to be sure, but it seems pretty weird to request an expanded talk page...? -- Oolong 11:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8401269&fsrc=nwlbtwfree I thought Carlyle first anointed economics the “dismal science” because liberal economists insisted that American slaves be free to sell their labour in the marketplace like everyone else. It was a debate on labour economics if I'm not wrong. Kendirangu 11:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The use of "another" in the first sentence is somewhat jarring. It feels like we've entered into the middle of a discussion -- or this paragraph has been pulled up from a later position.
Undoing a revert. The two parties need to discuss what is intended, and I believe the use is proper. U am, however, not a Carlysle expert. So, the reverted might be correct. Julzes ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, this is one of the least intelligible articles I've ever read on wikipedia. Granted I know little about the subject at hand, but even then, I should be able to understand what it is we're talking about here. Context please, don't assume everybody is familiar with the subject matter... this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.45.47.18 ( talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I tried to replace the choppy small subsections near the top of the article with more of a textual narrative flow. The slavery connection is a semi-strange historical quirk, but has nothing to do with how the phrase is commonly used today, and so should not be elevated to the lead paragraph. AnonMoos ( talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever Carlyle originally meant, the phrase gained traction because of the doctrines of Victorian "political economy", according to which it was often claimed to be uneconomical and inefficient to use government money to alleviate lower-class misery (though it was of course perfectly proper to use government funds to protect the property of the upper classes). Variations and developments on such views included the idea that all or almost all forms of charity or "relief" had a "pauperizing" effect of creating dependency, the maxim that the condition of the best-off man on "relief" always had to be worse than the condition of the worst-off employed man, or otherwise workers would resign their jobs en masse to live on handouts, strict moralistic and other criteria separating the "deserving" and "undeserving poor", etc. etc. ad nauseam. In the eyes of some, political economy was only separated by a thin line from outright misanthropy (such as Ebenezer Scrooge's aphorisms). The influence of such political economy ideas had their effect in inhibiting the British from organizing truly timely and large-scale effective aid to meet the needs created by the great Irish famine [1]... AnonMoos ( talk) 07:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The dismal science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 01:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The dismal science → Dismal Science – Dismal Science is how Carlyle wrote the term in the original essay. It is also how the term is given in both The Nuttall Encyclopædia and The Carlyle Encyclopedia (2004) as well as https://www.definitions.net/definition/Dismal%20Science and surely other sources. Many websites render it in lowercase ( https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp uses both), but as one of Carlyle's philosophical concepts it should rather be rendered as he conceived it. Sinopecynic ( talk) 23:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or "schools" of thought and practice, and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name."SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)