Every so often, the list kicks alive with a historiographic debate that touches a nerve in our disciplinary self-understanding. Roy Weintraub's post inquires into the history of a certain kind of economics. Prima facie, this is a synchronous concern. Some of the discussion moved in response to locate kinds of economics along several axes (e.g. 'empirical', 'theoretical', 'mainline'). His post also raises a diachronic concern: are we sufficiently aware of the present (in the sense of Boulding's 'extended present')? From which, as commentators have noted, follow others: what should we make of the intersection between contemporary economics and historical scholarship? Do we need historiographic 'embargo' periods? Is JHET a 'JEL of the past', perhaps with a bit more emphasis on 'About the author'? It seems we are, yet again, and as Tiago Mata and Roy himself have pointed out, at a juncture where disciplinary historians in other fields have begun defining the relevant historiographic questions (be)for us. Or maybe not? There is an empirical dimension to Roy's question that I find compels us to look for evidence beyond what we pick up intuitively as members of economics departments. When it comes to issues of synchronous bias of contemporary histories, perhaps one should look in another place altogether, over at RePEc and similar projects and the data they generate. We have here, pace de Solla Price, and in direct competition to Garfield's ISI, a nucleus for metrics and content analyses that historians ignore at their peril in this post-generalist age. Matthias Klaes