Talk:New Economics Foundation

Untitled
Any reason why 'nef' is not capitalized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.141.193.248 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 23 July 2006.


 * As you can see on the official website, it's just their style. Picaroon9288 01:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My view would be that wikipedia should not emulate the (lack of) capitalisation of the name, any more than we should insist on using the same typeface they do in their logo. It's a proper name and should conventionally be capitalised. I'd be surprised if (for example) the BBC or a major newspaper was to refer to the NEF without using capitals. See e.g. . I won't change it for now in case anyone can persuade me not to! --Casper Gutman 13:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree that it should be capitalised. The lower-case stuff is a bit pretentious, in my opinion.  So I've changed it.Stewart Robertson 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New Website from New Economics Foundation: onehundredmonths.org
Is this 'notable' enough to stick in the article somewhere? http://onehundredmonths.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbradley (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New section
With this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988648.stm Recent info from one of their organizers. skip sievert (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms
Should there be a criticisms section? Or are they so obscure that they haven't even garnered a reaction from mainstream economics? I don't know much about their work but from what I've heard, the majority of professional economists would disagree with their conclusions and methodology. For one, this James Robertson fellow sounds much more like an activist than an academic economist. I really think this page should be tempered with some criticisms, lest people think that they represent mainstream economics. 121.98.84.152 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * you can add one if you find criticism from reliable sources... its a bit difficult to find info about nef from reliable sources (and not self published).--SasiSasi (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)