Talk:Methodenstreit

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

My lead-section edit

I summarized my edit to the accompanying article thus:

This is an Eng-lang article on Methodenstreit, and that term's wider German use does not belong in the lead 'graph

My economics background is pretty thin, and my edit was, to the extent i could manage it, for correction of the form of the lead rather than its substance: the article's topic is the economic controversy, and not the term, and certainly not the (different) German usage of the same term. And while it is valuable to forestall mistaking German-language references to their narrower term for our 19th-century topic, the first sentence or two is far too early for that minor detail. I think that distinction belongs pretty much where i've left it, as an afterthot at the end of the lead section, before diving into the detailed substance of the topic.
I certainly hope for further edits by the contributors of the substance of the lead, or others better equipped than i to judge whether, e.g. "supporters" of one school vs. "proponents" of the other (a distinction i preserved) had served for mere euphony or variety on one hand, or factual nuance on the other, in what i found. I expect others can improve on my revision, but it is of similar importance that they recognize the structure that our guidelines for articles.
--Jerzy•t 23:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My derivation of "any science (as opposed to only history)" from "a science, apart from history" is another clueless-feeling attempt to preserve a colleague's meaning; i feel it might seem arrogant for me not to remedy my failure to acknowledge it as another risky rewording.
--Jerzy•t 04:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias

The content of the topic appears to be biased towards the Austrian side of the argument, as evidenced by the citations, which all reference Austrian School economists. This entire topic was covered in a book by Geoffrey Hodgson "How Economics Forgot History" ^[1], which discussed both sides and its impact on the path economics took in the 20th C. Unfortunately, my copy is hidden away in storage, otherwise I would make use of it here. --KerryNitz (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hodgson, Geoffrey (2001). How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-25717-4.

Other Methodenstreits/Methodenstreite

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodenstreit_in_der_Betriebswirtschaftslehre#20._Jahrhundert talks about this one. Third from bottom in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodenstreit links there. Books or papers also refer to social sciences with this term, e.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2968091

Which one should be on this wiki page?

95.88.51.57 (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hodgson, Geoffrey (2001). How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-25717-4.

[1]