Talk:Kenneth E. Boulding

Christianity: Quakers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as Mid-importance).

Economics

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Systems High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems theory.

It seems

It seems to me that all the text currently in Kenneth Boulding's Evolutionary Perspective and Psychic capital could fit in here, probably summarised. I very much doubt whether any encyclopedia user will find their way to the other article. Itsmejudith 10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Kenneth Building is a person, and psychic capital is an idea. Merging the two articles would be like merging Karl Marx and marxism articles.... --R.Sabbatini 13:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with R.Sabbatini, also in relation to Kenneth Boulding's Evolutionary Perspective. The idea and the person should remain different articles because the idea has enough information to constitute its own article (obviously) and should not require reading all about the person's life. Uris 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree in principle with R.Sabbatini and Uris. What's at issue also is whether the idea meets some sort of criteria of importance: has the concept of psychic capital been used by others, how, etc.? Not every idea of such a scholar merits separate articles, of course, but some certainly do. If the articles are not to be merged, then some of the content on the idea in the biography page should IMO be deleted & transferred out to the idea page (leaving a mention w/ link). --A12n 14:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears they've actually been merged since Dec 1, 2006. I'm removing the merge tag and changing psychic capital into a redirect. Whitejay²⁵¹ 02:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

did he get rich?

was he able to profit from his ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Boulding's Citation Classics

How come there are no pages for those two books? Janosabel (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)