Talk:Cliometrics

What should be done with this article?
this entry is tendentious and clearly an effort by a few people to advertise themselves. The journal "Cliometrica" does not even exist yet, and I doubt it will get off the ground. Shouldn't an encyclopedia focus on what *is*?--Fitzwilliam00 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Cliometrics" isn't just a catchy name: cliometricians are among the best economic historians out there.  That said, it might make more sense to merge this article into-- and make it the centerpiece of-- the (now-short) article on economic history. Jeremy Tobacman 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cliometrica exsist now, and was in April, 2008 in its fourth number Nuuskamuikkunen (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the bit about Cliometrica into a more neutrally-phrased article of its own. (It exists; I subscribe to it.)  I took out some unclear bits and advocacy, but there's still too much and also irrelevant detail, e.g. biography of individuals. I think the article should remain separate from the main article economic history because the terms cliometrics and new economic history are definitely used and meaningful. They refer to a specific intellectual movement that had a permanent effect in the study of economic history. -- Econterms (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why has this article been renamed from Cliometrics to the New Economic History? No cliometrician seriously uses that term any more. The professional society doesn't use it and practitioners don't use it either, unless they are very old or writing some sort of retrospective of the subject. This article was changed without discussion and I think it should be reverted. -- An LSE economic historian, 8 November 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.63.59 (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll gather input. - Econterms (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is clearly biased. It praises cliometrics as 'necessary' and groundbreaking. While this may be true, it has clearly been written by someone espousing his/her own genre of conducting history. As an economic historian, I find this article replete with bias, even if I agree with the majority of what has been written. I vote this be moved to a sub-section of economic history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.202.179 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * cliometrics has been a well established term for 40 years designating a particular approach to economic history, and deserves its own article. "replete with bias" needs some evidence, please. Even the critics agree it was "groundbreaking" Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know anything about the subject but a lot of the language in the article seems to be expressing the authors' views, not just giving the facts as an encyclopedia should. For instance: "While the cliometric revolution was successful, it was almost too much so..." Northwestgnome (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All this could be solved by adding proper citations at all the points where the article is too POV. Melcombe (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added several references. It turns out that most of the suspicious statements were based on an article by Claudia Goldin in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Since it is a reliable source, I have added the references where needed and phrased it as "according to economist Claudia Goldin..." when the statements were particularly stark. The section entitled "Past Accomplishments of Cliometrics" needs a rewrite to make it more neutrally worded. Another possibility would be to eliminate that section altogether if no reliable sources come up. CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Several months have passed since my last comment. I'm removing the section "Past Accomplishments of Cliometrics" as it is impossible to find sources for its content. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag since I don't really see what it's about. Presumably the section that was objectionable (and going by some of the bad writing elsewhere in the article there probably was one) was removed. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is DNA analysis not a part of cliometrics? DNA comes from historic parents, and the data can be usefully analyzed. Archaeogenetics is a big field.78.18.215.120 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Cliometrics v. cleometrics?
How does this article actually relate to the one on Cleometrics? Ovomaltino (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Didn't know that existed. Cleometrics seems to be the same thing, with a rarely-used spelling. I think they should be folded together, and Cleometrics should redirect here. Views? I'll gather input from econ historians. Econterms (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cliometrics. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121224040050/http://www.cliogroup.org.uk/index.htm to http://www.cliogroup.org.uk/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)