Talk:The Failure of the New Economics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

This article is in no way NPOV. The purpose of Wikipedia is neither to discredit nor promote Keynesian economics. Someone with a decent knowledge of the book needs to amend this article (or i will try). Isthatyou

I have tagged it as POV. The recent additions by the anonymous editor have made the POV much worse. LK (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Minor formatting changes by a banned editor that are improvements shouldn't be mindlessly reverted. Please review the edits and if there is any substantive edit, then it is (of course) necessary and desirable to revert. But if they are merely corrections of typos or issues of presentation that improve the page they should be left and the sockpuppet banned. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.44.218 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Failure of the New Economics. 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://web.archive.org/web/20101209040921/http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/henry-hazlitt-a-man-for-many-seasons/ to http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/henry-hazlitt-a-man-for-many-seasons/

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]