Talk:Green Economics

Merger?
I think merger into Ecological economics is a great idea. I tagged Green Economics for a copyright violation, but it is actual cut word for word from one or two sources and pasted together with what appears to be original research or at least original conclusions. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I fundamentally disagree with this. Ecological economics is a specific aspect of Green economics, which is much wider and includes ecological economics (which focuses on within system theory and environmental science), localism green anarchism, eco-socialism, green libertarianism and so many more. This is a really bad move. Yes, the article before wasn't very good, but please reconsider this change. Aled Dilwyn Fisher (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because one or two websites claim to represent "Green economics" doesn't mean it exists as a field. It's not notable. It's not economics. There's no research done in green economics. Stop trying to create an economics field. All of those "green" movements could be incorporated into a "green movement" article, or may be better located as sections in each of their articles. But I've never heard of any of what you're talking about, and you can't just write up original research. I've got a B.A. in economics. OptimistBen (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, because Green Economics is rife with copyright violations, It cannot stand as written. It would need a complete rewrite to maintiain the article. Unless that is done, merging the usable text into Ecological economics (assuming it is new and adds to the verified context) would be a way to salvage the article's data. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd point out that Green economics (without capital "e") currently redirects to Ecological economics, which was part of my reasoning for proposing the merger. --Dawn bard (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion
Articles_for_deletion/Green_economics. The result was delete. Glance at it and you'll see that there was a major copyright violation. The current information, on the other hand, is not really notable and should be merged with Ecological economics. OptimistBen (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)