Talk:Adam Smith/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WikiProject Economics — FA drive

To Do

I hope people don't mind but I figured it would be useful to have a To Do section here at the top of the page so people know what works need to be done. Please add anything else to this list that you think needs to be done. Remember (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add pictures
• Check citations

Ahem, let me direct you to the fancy todo template at the top of this Talk page I added ;) The actual list is stored at Talk:Adam Smith/to do, so you can watchlist that separately. Let's try to keep the items on the list to the most bare essentials. I don't think any more pictures is, by any means, of extreme importance. Simple cleanup and making the article more NPOV is far more important, in my opinion; checking citations is a good idea, although I went through them and the ones that remain seem to me to be reliable sources. Gary King (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's much better. Everyone just look up there and ignore this section. (or someone can delete it). Remember (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Initial Comments

Some first thoughts as I glance at the article. I don't think "Critics of Adam Smith" should be a section as it is, but integrated into the article where the points of criticism are applicable. "Major works" is another section that should be integrated into other parts of the article, like the "Works" section. "Interpreting Adam Smith" seems very incomplete - merge or expand. Morphh ^(talk) 17:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I modified this section's title if that's okay with you; hopefully it brings attention to this great cause of ours. In regards to the article, certainly a lot of work has to be done before even bringing it to Good Article standards. Over the next few hours I hope to clean it up significantly so that a lot of huge, glaring issues including the ones you mentioned will be resolved. I think if we give this article 24 hours of cleanup then we can have a serious discussion about what else needs improvement; right now, the article is certainly a mess. A little cleanup here and there will do a lot more good than not because it is in such bad shape. Gary King (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I've found some free sources from Google Book Search that might be helpful to substantiate random facts

• The Life of Adam Smith by John Rae in 1895
• English Men of letter series on Adam Smith Francis W. Hirst - 1904]
• Adam Smith by J. A. Farrer - 1881

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs)

The second URL you posted is incorrect. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Try it now.Remember (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting references

Please format references by using the instructions located at WP:CIT. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More references needed

Frankly, this article needs more references. Content isn't as big of an issue because it's got a lot of it, but a lot of it is unreferenced. When you find references, often you will come upon interesting information that should be added to the article. If there is an obvious gap in his biography, though, then by all means add it, but referencing is where we should focus on so that we don't end up with a lengthy article with no references. Simplicity is key. Also, I'm sure there is some information that can be removed from the article (I haven't done a thorough check yet). Gary King (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So I took a trip to the library today and met with some goods and bads. The bad news is that there was very little on Adam Smith. I checked out the only book they had, which is written for a high school audience at best. However, while it's a bit simplistic, it has a lot of good information: for instance, there is information about Adam Smith's father ("Adam Smith's father, also named Adam, was a lawyer and civil servant who served for a time as comptroller of customs at Kirkcaldy, on the east coast of Scotland."). I am going to use it as a reference for now, with the caveat that in the future we will use sources from its bibliography to cite the information (where at all possible). Below is a list of references that look like they may have the information we're looking for:

• Buchholtz, Todd G. New Ideas from Dead Economists: An Introduction to Modern Economic Thought." 2nd ed. New York: Penguin, 1999.
• Flynn, John T. Men of Wealth: The Story of Twelve Significant Fortunes from the Renaissance to the Present Day. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1941.
• Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.
• McConnell, John W. The Basic Teachings of the Great Economists. New York: New Home Library, 1943.
• Mai, Ludwig H. Men and Ideas in Economics: A Dictionary of World Economists Past and Present. Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams, 1975.
• Pressman, Steven. Fifty Major Economists. London: Routledge, 1999.
• Raphael, D. D., Donald Winch, and Robert Skidelsky. Three Great Economists: Smith, Malthus, Keynes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Ross, Ian Simpson. The Life of Adam Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• West, E. G. Adam Smith: The Man and His Work. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1969.

-FrankTobia (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com and Google Books both allow users to read some of the books online; a search term must be provided so you can't actually flip through every page, but I think it's worth noting. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have new ideas from dead economist. It has a short section on Adam Smith but I will look through it and add the relevant parts (when I get the time). Remember (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I got "The Authentic Adam Smith: His Life and Ideas" by James Buchan just now; it is the most commonly used reference in the article right now, so I can use the book to verify the references and add a few more. I think a lot of the information in the article was added by someone who had this book but didn't know how to add references so they were not added. Gary King (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source of references: http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/smith.htm Cherlin (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References should include the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, in 6 volumes plus two assciated volumes (one of them is Ross's Life of Adam Smith mentioned above; the other one, Essays on Adam Smith, by A. S. Skinner and T. Wilson, Clarendon Press 1975, contains 30 high-quality articles of great detail on Smith), general editor A. S. Skinner, published by Oxford University Press or Clarendon Press starting around 1974, their web site will supply all details.Mimuli (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gypsy abduction?

Is the story of Smith's alleged abduction by gypsies notable? I contend that it isn't: it's a nice story, but it doesn't offer any insight into his personality or behavior, and has no connection to the rest of the article. It's 142 words of WP:UNDUE right as you start reading. Anyone else think it should be removed, or are there good arguments for keeping it? -FrankTobia (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable because it is so odd (and the only story known about that period in his life) but maybe we can reduce it and shove most of it into a footnote with the pulled quote. Remember (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out how I have revised it and see if that works for you. Remember (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That is really cool, I didn't know you could work that sort of magic with footnotes. I think it's great now, it adds a bit of flavor in a much smaller amount of space. Well done! -FrankTobia (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I decided to move the quote from the reference to its own note because I don't want to clutter up the references any more than necessary. Gary King (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I like what you did but the links aren't working for me. Do you know why? Remember (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They work for me. Could you be more specific, or did you get this handled already? -FrankTobia (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

When you click on footnote one, it doesn't take me to the quote at the bottom. In fact, it takes me nowhere. And when I click the footnote section next to the quote, it does not take me to the footnote section. Plus, we have two number one citations now, which is odd. Remember (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed both. The formatting idea I stole from Charles Darwin, and now it uses Template:Ref label instead of Template:Ref. Does it work for you now? -FrankTobia (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job. Works great now! Remember (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some debate over the inclusion of the quote as a footnote. My personal opinion is that we don't need to include quotes for any references; things should be as self-explanatory as possible, per the KISS principle. If you really need to explain something, then explain it in context in the text itself. I'm also always wary of things that might turn into slippery slopes, and this might be one; eventually, we may have a footnotes section that gets larger and larger. I think the best Featured articles don't have any footnotes. Gary King (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. We don't need the quote as a reference, but footnotes allow us to include additional information that would be out of place or cumbersome within the article. See Charles Darwin for an article that I think makes excellent use of footnotes. I agree that it could be a slippery slope, but that just means we must keep a diligent eye on it, and decide the proper scope if it grows as you've predicted. A footnotes section can be a useful tool. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Frank. Plus, to me the gypsy story is so odd that it begs for further explanation and backup but that information would be odd in the main text. I think it works well in the footnote. Remember (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gary regarding the quote. If the information is important enough to mention, then it should be included in the article, if not, than I think it should just source where the information came from. I don't care for footnotes with long quotes. If they want cute quotes, they can go to the source. I'm not too worried about it though.. whatever works. Morphh ^(talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

← Yep, I've got the same feeling as Morphh. I've come across many articles that included quotes of anecdotes in the footnotes, and I always wondered why they were included when they just cluttered up important information that is used to actually look up references. Ideally, the reader should read what we have and then visit references if they want to know more. Some information may border on being strange and therefore may require a quote in the footnotes to further explain it, but if we have to draw a line for each little bit of information then it can be more than just a hassle. But, I also don't care that deeply about this issue since I respect you guys as editors, so I can live with it either way. Gary King (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sculptures

There are some works by artist James Sanborn that appear in various universities, which include extracts of Adam Smith's work. Some of these extracts are in English, and some are encrypted. For example, at Cleveland University in Ohio and the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, are some "Adam's Smith Spinning Top" sculptures. There's also a piece in Connecticut called "Circulating Capital". Thumbnails here.[1] Would these be good for the "Legacy" section? --Elonka 02:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since there were no objections, I went ahead and added some information to the "Legacy" section, along with a photograph of one of the pieces. I can probably scare up images of some of the others, too. Let me know.  :) --Elonka 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me! -FrankTobia (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I saw that Morphh added a to-do item to expand the lead section. I agree that it definitely needs to happen, and sooner is generally better than later. But since the lead is meant to summarize the article, and the article isn't very organized or polished, I wonder how productive that would be at the current time. Maybe it's for later, or maybe a sufficiently knowledgeable editor could write it for how the article will look in the future? Of course the lead won't be perfect at first, but the issue I see is how many times it will need to be re-written before we're done. Thoughts? -FrankTobia (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually what I do is add a skeleton lead, meaning typically three paragraphs, each at least a sentence long so that I am actively reminding myself to expand them later. I think that strategies like this work better than a to-do list because they are more inline with the article. Gary King (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the todo entry was to have us create that skeleton. I think we have enough content and areas to create 2-3 paragraphs. My thought was to go to each section and summarize it into a 1-3 sentences and add it to the lead. The lead will change as we rewrite sections and improve, and sometimes it's easier to update the lead along with the changes in text. Ultimately the lead is the most important part of the article, so I'd like to get something started so we have plenty of time to work out prose and summarization. I understand the thought though and can work with waiting. I've also had it work out well for me when the article was pretty much written and I just had to go through and pull a lead together. Morphh ^(talk) 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. If you go ahead and work on the lead, I'll pitch in if I can make improvements. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I originally created a skeleton lead, with the first paragraph summarizing Smith and his accomplishments, the second paragraph summarizing the biographical part of the article, and the third paragraph summarizing his works, primarily Wealth of Nations, but it was removed. I don't feel too strongly about re-creating a skeleton lead or not, since we can always just return to that later. Gary King (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Memorials

The article states "The first large-scale memorial of Smith was created in 2007 in Edinburgh". Surely the first large-scale memorial would be the Adam Smith Theatre in Kirkcaldy (donated to the town in 1899) which although featured as a photograph isn't mentioned in the text? Liam Mason (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was also curious about this. I have changed the sentence to make it less of a grand statement. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

I moved the Chomsky quote to this section, since it wasn't about the "Adam Smith problem". The difficulty now is that we have very extensive debunking of the "patron saint of capitalism" viewpoint, but very little in support of that view (or more moderate versions of the same claim). I'll try and find some more middle of the road statements to include.JQ (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the main point to take away is that Adam Smith was not a market fundamentalist, but instead was somewhat moderate by today's standards. By that I mean he trusted markets only where they weren't failing, such as in perfect competition or where market power was not concentrated. As long as we express that Smith did not promote unfettered capitalism, and he did think some limited government intervention could improve market outcomes, (and find a source for these claims), then I think we're good. I feel like I read about this in the Wall Street Journal, but it could have been something by Paul Krugman; sorry I can't be more specific, but I'll look for sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this very much. q (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy - POV

NPOV policy says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. The most popular interpretation of Smith is a pro free-market one. Other interpretations (e.g. Chomsky's) should not be removed, however they should be given less atention than the majority view. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing this currently in the "removed content" section of the talk page. We are addressing this concern, and I think it would be useful to read what has been said so far, and respond in kind as to not repeat all that has been written. It's an active discussion. q (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I retract that. This is sufficiently separate. Chomsky's view (which is a Classical Libertarian view, not just Chomsky's) is given significantly less attention in the article. As far as prominence, Chomsky is one of the most cited scholars, and I think his view point fits within this context. Especially concerning classical libertarianism of which Chomsky is arguably the foremost expert. q (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is article on Adam Smith and as far as I know Chomsky is not "one of the most cited scholars" on him. -- Vision Thing -- 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't even make any sense to me, so I don't know how to properly respond. Are you suggesting a criteria for articles that only the "most cited scholars" should be cited? I don't think that would be wise, as you'd have to remove almost every citation in the article, and we might as well not even have one. q (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team

Help from the FA-Team has been requested for this article on its push towards FAC. We have created a mission page, so please list any specific help you require there. I will be doing a peer review of the article later today! This is a very exciting and important article. I've read Smith's works and quite a bit about the Theory of Moral Sentiments, so I am looking forward to reading the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We may also want to contact the Biography Wikiproject. Morphh ^(talk) 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

First peer review from Awadewit

(moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Smith/archive1 with permission by Gary King (talk))

This is a good list of items that we can begin to work on. Some of them we have already discussed so we are aware of them, but others are also good points. The article is still under heavy development, too — just look at how different it was a week ago! Cheers. Gary King (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the work going? Awadewit (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we still need help discussing Smith's other works and I feel the effort is kinda stalled. Remember (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you need help with beyond this? The FA-Team doesn't usually do research and add wide swaths of content - we rely on the article's editors for that. We try to help polish articles after all of the research is in place - I'm sure you can see why. Awadewit (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image layout

Something brief I noticed: this edit may fix formatting on smaller browsers but breaks MOS:IMAGES, where images of faces should be looking at the text and not away from it. Not a big issue but I wanted to make sure it was documented, so we can fix both issues later. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering about that. The issue was it was pushing the level three headings over at 1024x758 and 1152x854 resolutions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be better now. Looks good on 1440x900 resolution, so it should look even better on smaller resolutions. Gary King (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To do list?

Do we need a little "to do" list for this article? Would that help out the editors? Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a to do list at the top of the page, FYI. Feel free to add to it and complete items from it. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The editors on this article requested help from the FA-Team to try and get this article to FA status. I am trying to coordinate those efforts. It helps to have a clearly delineated "to do" list for the team members, as they are not familiar with the article or its subject matter. I am beginning to think that this request was a bit premature as substantial sections of the article still need to be researched and written (see my peer review), but I want to make sure that we are doing all we can to help. Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A re-write of the to-do list would be helpful. I am afraid that the effort to get this up to FA status has greatly stalled. I unfortunately, do not have the time any more to work hard on this project due to personal issues. Sorry if I got the FA-team involved in an effort that leads nowhere, but at the time I thought it was going to happen. Remember (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm inclined to agree with you that the FA-Team help request was premature. From the to do it looks like we have much more content to add before the article can be polished. Not sure what you want to do about this, but I think the FA-Team should spend its time on other projects until this one comes together. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we put it on the back burner, then? Since I study the eighteenth-century myself, I know how very important Adam Smith is, so I definitely want this article to be an FA. Once the content issues have been sorted out, we will come back with our MOS manuals, copyeditors, etc. in tow. Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Douglas

An IP editor has been pretty adamant about changing "Margaret Lindsay Douglas" to "Margaret Douglas". I feel like the source I was using specified the former as her name, but now I'm not so sure. Does anyone have sourcing for this statement so we can clarify? -FrankTobia (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional Reference: Otteson's "Marketplace of Life"

James R. Otteson: "Adam Smith’s Marketplace of Life." Cambridge 2002. (a unifying view of Smith's theories, attempting to resolve the so-called Adam-Smith Problem) -- 89.247.70.129 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wealth of Nations

I've updated the subheading on "The Wealth of Nations" to try and conform with WP:SUMMARIZE, the guideline on summary style. I had to remove some content, and merged other content (mainly the sourced content) with the article on The Wealth of Nations. I'm sure it could use some copyediting or sprucing up, but I hope everyone thinks it's an improvement. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Drive - status

It seems that lately WP:ECON's drive to bring this article to Featured status has slowed down. The past month has seen fewer edits, and virtually no large substantive changes.

Adam Smith has sure come a long way (old and new). They're practically different articles. I count around 60 more citations, a reorganized subheading structure, and it's a vastly better read. We should be proud. In light of this, it's my opinion that we should refocus our efforts on a more easily achievable goal: maybe WP:GA, or maybe it's been improved enough so we're all relatively happy with it. I know I am.

I didn't realize that getting to WP:FA would be so difficult. But the amount of improvement that this article has seen is spectacular. If anyone has objections to gracefully ending WP:ECON's first Featured Article Drive, don't hesitate to raise them. But I think there are a few more articles that deserve our hard work. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to run through taking a shot at FAC issues where I see them, which presumably will help at GAN. First up: I'm not wild about the link for the most influential books ever written. This is, after all, just one guy's opinion (and I notice the list has books that almost no one has ever been able to get all the way through, such as Hegel's), and we really ought to be giving old Adam more support than that; The Wealth of Nations is easily one of the most influential modern Western works. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• People at FAC will want a slightly longer lead, something that touches on at least the top-level headings of the article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• I take it from "labour" and the subject matter that this article is not in American English. "Characterize" might be better as "characterise", but I lose language competence fast outside the borders of the U.S., so I won't make the change. For the same reason, I'm not going to change language that sounds a little off to me, such as "born ... at Kirkcaldy" - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Few events in Smith's early childhood were recorded, but one event recorded by Scottish journalist John Rae..." That will need tightening at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done -FrankTobia (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• "to teach himself several subjects": it would be better to list the subjects. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
• "copious amounts of" changed to "many", but if "incredibly many" was meant, then say how many and on what evidence. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Also see pointers to pages and common arguments at FAC in my edit summaries. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
• There are a few links that I feel comfortable removing if I can point to a style guideline page or a recent conversation at WT:MOS. In general, I'll leave links in, but I think a third of them won't survive at FAC. Tony and others like to remove a link if the page being linked to doesn't improve the reader's knowledge of the subject; for instance, you have to read a lot at the Reason page in order to extract a little information about what the subject meant to 18th-century philosophers, so a pointer to 18th-century philosophy would probably be more helpful. Readers probably won't need a definition of "reason". Also, if there are 200 links in an article, rarely will a reader click on more than a fifth of them, and they have no way of knowing which of those links are going to be productive, so reducing links in general is seen at FAC as a valuable service to the typical reader. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Unusual claims require unusual evidence. Stealing young children to raise is probably exceptionally rare (and the charge is probably racially motivated); I wouldn't be willing to take one person's say-so for this. Children were sometimes abducted for ransom, but again, I'd want to see more evidence. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• "skillful or adept at public speaking": either delete one of the words, or if two different things are meant, distinguish the two things. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • Done. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Smith's capacity for fluent, persuasive, if rather rhetorical argument, is much in evidence.": this isn't wrong AFAIK, but if this were an AmEng article at FAC, I would change it to "Smith's capacity for fluent and persuasive (if rather rhetorical) argument is much in evidence." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Made an attempt; see what you think. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• "and from what Scott": shouldn't that be "which Scott"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • I think it was okay, but I copyedited around it. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Cannan's work appeared as Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms." I'm not following; did Scott simply reproduce an unpublished manuscript by Cannan? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Copyedited and removed what looked extraneous. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• "the group ... the party": which group? I think probably "they" or "Smith and Henry Scott" would be sufficient, but if someone else notable was traveling along, it would be good to mention that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Consistency is needed in capitalization of "physiocrat" and related words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't feel strongly about this, but see WP:NCP regarding not mentioning "Dr" or "Dr." (Dr Samuel Johnson) unless it's important. One reason that I don't think is mentioned at WP:NCP is that "Dr" (instead of "Dr.") looks wrong to Americans, and even if you don't give a rat about what looks right to Americans, it's still a good idea to save yourself the trouble of having to revert our/their "corrections". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• I didn't fiddle with the paragraphs in Later years and writings because I think some at FAC will think that this section needs to be expanded. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, I'll stop at Personality and beliefs and wait to see if you guys still want to push on to FAC. I've done most of the edits myself, and I can do more. Something new at FAC is that we're recommending delinking of full dates (unless the date really is important and you want to point to it specifically); this can be done in any article, but we're recommending it in articles that seem link-heavy to us. If no one minds, I'll use an automatic delinking script in a few days. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was rather impressive. Thanks, not just for fixing the article but showing me some things and ideas that I can use in other articles. Thanks again. --Patrick (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Consensus seems to be that this article needs more material and better sourcing before it can get to FA, and I can't help with that, but sometimes people stop working towards FA because it seems too far off...hopefully it seems a little closer, now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for all your help Dan. Your wiki-fu is most impressive. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith was a great writer who was easy to read, a rare combination. My empty hand (kara-te) is no match for his invisible hand. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing quotations

Recently I've been removing and paraphrasing many of the quotations in this article, especially in the sections on Smith's works and legacy. My latest edit was a partial reversion of John Quiggin's re-addition of an Alan Greenspan quote, so I figured I'd discuss here. In order to bring this article up to good article or featured article quality, we need to work on copyediting and the flow of the text. Block quotes should be used sparingly, as they break the flow. See Federal Reserve System as an example of what should be avoided. In any case, I'm going to keep working on this, so if I step on any toes please discuss it here. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the paraphrase of Greenspan as it just says WoN is a great book, but not why. And the overall effect on the section is problematic. The proposition that Smith is the founder of free market economics is supported by a platitude from Greenspan and a silly claim from PJ O'Rourke before being refuted at length, resulting in an unbalanced presentation. Although I think Stein has the best of the argument, at least the affirmative proposition should be stated at enough length to permit it to be understood. The Greenspan quote did this. JQ (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to address your concerns here. You were right that the third paragraph needed some pruning, and I made another attempt to paraphrase the Greenspan quote. Let me know if you think these changes are acceptable. I appreciate the constructive criticism: thanks for keeping me honest through my marathon bouts of copyediting. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Father of Economics?

That is patent nonsense. Economics has been around at least since the 22nd century BC. Although perhaps called by other names. Considered the father of economics is a really bad way to start out a supposedly neutral article. Smith recycled and made contemporary to the 18th. century some ideas from the past and arguably he was a good humanitarian for the time period. He did not father any thing in particular... and sourcing that from a newish article in the New York Times that is not possible to open unless you sign on to their site ... seems like a not so good idea also.

He is widely acknowledged as the "father of economics".=The New York Times date 2001-07-08 |author Mattick, Paul

Because the Times said so ?? in an article that can not be accessed? The Smith article does not need this bombastic sentiment. It detracts from who Smith actually was. Smith does not need promoting or to be placed on an ivory pillar.skip sievert (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip, the mainstream view clearly holds Smith as the father of modern economics. You might find that view preposterous, but that is the mainstream view and Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Random quote: "Adam Smith is generally regarded as the founding father of classical economics... His legacy is out understanding of the economic world we live in today." (Paul Strathern, A Brief History of Economic Genius, p.77). This understanding is so commonplace that many just assume the reader knows it and work from there: "Any descendant of Adam Smith, left or right, whether by way of Marx or Marshall, Veblen or Menger, will be happy to tell you a better story." (Deirdre McCloskey, The Rhetoric of Economics 2nd Ed., p. 14.) Downgrading Smith's importance is inappropriately POV.

(It's annoying but you can read the NYTimes article if you create a free account, article's archived at [2].)Cretog8 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your quote..."Adam Smith is generally regarded as the founding father of classical economics. may or may not be true Cretog... but that is a far cry from what was in the article. ''He is widely acknowledged as the "father of economics"... and that is ridiculous. The father of modern economics... How could that be? This is not the 18th. century. No great wrongs have much any thing to do with this. That was just bad information.... Smith is not the father of Economics... Classical... so called or other. He was a moral philosopher... that had some good ideas for the time and place. Sorry but I consider the New York Times to be one of the worst papers on earth and would not create an account if I were paid to. skip sievert (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Cretog on this one. Smith is widely considered the father of modern economics, and it's our job as Wikipedians to present mainstream views without giving undue weight to other views. If you have a problem with neutral point of view issues then we can discuss them, and perhaps the fact as it was stated could be improved. But denying that part of Smith's legacy flies in the face of both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong and this is why and how...Your quote Cretog..."Adam Smith is generally regarded as the founding father of classical economics. end quote Cretog... may or may not be true...Classical economics is recycled stuff from Sumeria... mostly.. but that is a far cry from what was in the article. ''He is widely acknowledged as the "father of economics"... and that is ridiculous. The father of modern economics... How could that be? This is not the 18th. century. No great wrongs have much any thing to do with this and I resent the connector you put in above. Lets not start making up derogatory aspersions that are not an issue. This is about content. Ok?. That was just bad information.... Smith is not the father of Economics... Classical econ.. maybe... so called or other. He was a moral philosopher, then an economist... that had some good ideas for the time and place. The New York Times in a book review is not a good source. It is an out of context quote anyway.

Here is an excerpt from the article in question from your link and the citation, It's hardly an accident that a contemporary investment guru took Adam Smith as his nom de tube. More than just the father of economics, Smith is the totemic ancestor of the free market idea itself, the system that since the fall of Communism in the East and the triumph of fiscal conservatism in the West supposedly rules the world under the name of neoliberalism. And indeed, according to Emma Rothschild, the start of the 21st century shares with the late 18th, Smith's period, the rhetoric of freedom of commerce and the sense of living in a society of universal commerce and universal uncertainty.

I would consider this poorly phrased literary fluff. And that is about all. It is a promotion for a book. A commercial promotion for a book. A good source...? No. And the issue? Is Adam Smith the father of economics? No... and that is patent nonsense to claim he is as was stated in the article and referenced by a book review in the Times. skip sievert (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You said, "And the issue? Is Adam Smith the father of economics?" That is not the issue. The issue is whether he is widely considered the father of economics. He is. Cretog8 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I added another reference. Cretog8 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding another what could be considered misplaced or not related ref. citation will not make it look or sound any better. You have added on that...^ Hoaas, David J. & Madigan, Lauren J. (1999), "A citation analysis of economists in principles of economics textbooks", The Social Science Journal 36(3): 525-532.

That is completely bogus. It does not confirm the he is the father of economics... which a poorly written Times article misquoted, says, and I consider this issue now to go beyond what could be considered normal sourcing as people (Cretog) has put in a nonsense citation for a nonsense argument. Does the citation say that Smith is the father of economics... No. So why is it used now as any thing other than what could be considered sham sourcing to back up a nonsense opinion... which does not need to be done. I hope that this article is not a victim of hero worship of Smith... which is misguided.. seems so with putting that information in, and the defense made by Cretog and Frank. skip sievert (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of sources for the assertion that Smith is the father of economics. Simply do the following google search [3] and google book search [4]and there is a bunch of stuff to cite to. Whether the view is incorrect is another matter, but it is widely held that Smith is the "father of economics." Remember (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there may be no end to Libertarian nonsense beliefs... but that does not mean it is a fact. While book titles can claim that... it is bogus information and not true. The original so called source was a book review? Yes..quote More than just the father of economics, Smith is the totemic ancestor of the free market idea itself, the system that since the fall of Communism in the East and the triumph of fiscal conservatism in the West supposedly rules the world under the name of neoliberalism. It is the review of a book... this is not an academic... (even remotely) learned opinion... it is a fluffy review which makes all kinds of dubious and disputable claims... in flowery language. It is not even a real source.. it is an opinion in a book review... a commercial really. The internet can be scoured for just about any thing. It is not mainstream in any way to say that Smith is the father of economics why? Because he was not. Is that simple enough? He did not invent the word did he... do you know where the word came from... Was Smith a Greek also? No? What a surprise... That phrase is patent nonsense and as said the recently bogus citation is not saying it either that can be confirmed.. that should be taken off Hoaas, David J. & Madigan, Lauren J. (1999), "A citation analysis of economists in principles of economics textbooks", The Social Science Journal 36(3): 525-532 unless an open copy with the actual phrase of Smith being the Father of Economics is really there... which it is not... is it? So why is it on there? That line wrecks the Father of Economics wrecks what is a pretty good article. Any one reading that (my opinion), will laugh and think it is mostly a comical disinformation insert.skip sievert (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip, by all appearances you are accusing me of fraudulent sourcing. If so, please reconsider your accusations. If I misunderstand, then please reconsider your phrasing and better explain what you object to. (This is only on the article talk page because you requested I bring it here instead of your talk page.) Cretog8 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So far everything you have said is your opinion. How is it mainstream not to say that Smith is the father? Sources please? Also, the source that Cretog added is completely accurate. If you would like a copy, please let me know and I can email it to you. --Patrick (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Really...? Just quote the exact line that confirms that Adam Smith is the father of economics please... sorry... I do not believe you.. Saying he is the father... is like saying he is the mother of all economists... It just does not make sense... it is borderline gibberish. I hope you understand. Economics the word comes from here... The term economics comes from the Greek for oikos (house) and nomos (custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold). Are you claiming that Adam Smith is a greek... and also lived in ancient times... and that all the economic texts written before Smith.... all of them are fathered by Smith as well? Now really.

What about this sort of thing... and how ridiculous would you like to make the argument here? Ancient economic thought

Main article: Ancient economic thought

• Chanakya (Kautilya)
• Xenophon
• Aristotle
• Qin Shi Huang
• Wang Anshi

skip sievert (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not saying that Smith is the father of economics. We are saying that He is widely acknowledged as the "father of economics". The quote is

In general, the texts are quite ready to give Smith credit for being the father of economics (Byrns and Stone, 1995, p. 83).

What we are saying is exactly backed up by the sources provided. If you are unhappy with this, i recommend writing a book that claims that is smith is not widely acknowledged as the "father of economics" and if the book provides enough sources, we would more then happy to quote here at the article. --Patrick (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, but I have better things to do. The way the line is phrased is wrong. He is not the father of economics... and that is a fact. Your opinion of Smith non withstanding. Perhaps you are a Libertarian ? and believe Smith is a end all and be all? That seems biased. I am not claiming to be notable. Just neutral. Not that theres any thing wrong with that. Oh and what does quite ready to give Smith credit... in general Sounds like a confused sentiment to me. You can not quote the real thing... can you? He is widely acknowledged as the "father of economics" Weasel words.... to say the least. He is not the father of Economics... and no one I know claims he is. History did not start with Smith. Really that sentiment makes the article shallow as to content.skip sievert (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith as father

The article as currently written purveys the wrong aspect of who Smith was in regard to economics. One way to clear this up is to change the acknowledged father of economics... to something that actually makes sense... or is accurate. Smith is not the father of economics... he is though someone that should be portrayed accurately. Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the father of modern political economy...... Now that is the reality of this argument... and should be placed in the article as soon as possible... because right now... it looks pretty silly. I would change it slightly though also so it does not sound so ridiculously paternalistic. Like Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the originator of what is viewed as modern political economy. Think about that. Right now what is there does not make sense. skip sievert (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What it sounds like to me you are arguing is that while many people state that Adam Smith is the father of economics, that title is inaccurate given the vast amount of economic thinking that occurred before Smith (and which Smith may have drawn from). That point is an interesting and debatable assertion. Nevertheless, here on wikipedia we do not make such assertions, we simply chronicle other peoples assertions and facts. I think it is easy to support the statement that people commonly make the assertion that "Adam Smith is the father of economics" whether or not that assertion is accurate. Therefore, the statement that "Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the father of economics" you may describe a widespread belief that is inaccurate (which we on wikipedia can neither confirm nor deny), but it is not untrue. Remember (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny. No doubt every Libertarian in the room is applauding your endorsement of that disinformation now which is not neutral.. accurate or widely held to be true... only by some... and out of 10 people how many would think so? It could be considered political disinformation also... not everyone agrees with it as it is political propaganda possibly also. It is disputed here. It is probably better to give fairly accurate information here... no? Dictionary definition of Economics = [Origin: 1785–95; see economic, -ics].... so.. Smith wrote about political economy in 1776 ... because the word, for one thing was not around... also as said the citations are bogus to back up the sentence as it now is. Also, it is pretty pathetic in this day and age to be so paternalistic in phrasing. Your new phrasing Remember is better... "Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the father of economics" I would take it a step further and say something like Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics Why perpetuate bad information... better to explain it reasonably so it can be understood... instead of turning it into an Urban myth that Smith originated something as a father... mother.. etc.... which was only recycled information.. cleverly recycled. If nothing else that sentence should be permanently dropped from the article as written now (my opinion). It appears to have been written by the Smith devotee`s club. By the way... according to that garbled nonsense of a sentence... does Smith remain the father of economics for all time??? or can a new father come forth one day? skip sievert (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip, it's clear that there is a consensus to keep the sentence in the article. The term "father/mother of X" is just a linguistic construct, and not meant to be taken literally. There is a fine father of article that you can read, which shows that Smith is not the only person to be considered a father of some field. The sentence is sourced according to WP:V and WP:RS; it is phrased in accordance with WP:NPOV. I feel like this thread should probably be nearing an end. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Last time I checked you can not use another wikipedia article as a source. Also the sources listed now are bogus... the citations. Why perpetuate an Urban myth and claim otherwise. He is not the father... mother etc. You can not cite a wiki article for confirmation. The nonsense phrase is not important to the article and at the very least does not add any thing but detracts... It is a sort of commercial for an economic theory giving it an unrealistic feel. That phrase does not belong in the article. Either this makes more sense Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics or the phrase should be dropped.skip sievert (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted skip's changes (again) because they don't reflect the consensus as discussed above. Skip, just because you keep pushing that sentence doesn't make it right. Every other editor has thus far disagreed with your proposed change, so I think it's time for you to stop going against consensus. Also, please don't mark edits that change substantive content as minor: see Help:Minor edit for details. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it sounds like a lecture. There is not a consensus currently and I prefer my edit because the information is better in my opinion. You also put back in two bogus citations when you reverted. One goes to a general economics article that has nothing to do with sentence and the other goes to a book review... the reviewer of someones book that toss's off that opinion... which sounds paternalistic and also is not accurate. I am not pushing the sentence... or arguing that pushing it makes it right. I am saying that the sentence is pretty ridiculous as is, biased, sexist, and a few other things. I consider it a minor edit by the way, as to importance. Because it is just a presentational change, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera really much. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Well... if this is a dispute now... then maybe I will not mark it next time.

At the very least that line should be dropped ... if it is not going to be changed or improved. The article starts off with a flop with it in. Bad info with lots of baggage. Dropping the sentence would be an improvement at least. What about the issues brought up..??. the pseudo sourcing of that, an advertisement/review for a book... and a disconnected economics article, with no bearing toward the sentence? Huh? The two citations that are not really sources ?

The sentence as is may have to be tagged with a weasel words sticker. Just about any thing is better than what is there now... Example Smith an 18th century Scottish moral philosopher, whose impulses led to (many of) our modern day theories; his work marks the breakthrough of an evolutionary approach, which has progressively displaced the stationary Aristotelian view. http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Smith.htm skip sievert (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I found some sources. But first let's state the sentence in question: "He is widely acknowledged as the 'father of economics'". For this to be supported per verifiability, we must find multiple reliable sources stating that Smith is considered the "father of economics".

So I decided to do a little Google searching. I searched "father of economics", and in the first 10 results I count eight that either refer to Smith as "father of economics" or say that he is "widely regarded as the father of economics". These include a sample essay, a wikianswers article, an article from plus magazine, American Association of Wine Economists, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, and another blog. It's pretty widely agreed, and "Adam Smith is often regarded as the 'father of economics'" is a very reasonable statement whether you agree with it or not.

In any case, I heard a few requests for sources, so I found some. The statement is not an instance of WP:WEASEL because it's not of the form "Some people say that Smith is 'father of economics'". It's not trying to push a point of view that he is. The fact being asserted is that he is "widely regarded" as such. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant: Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. With these references I think it's verifiable. What do you think? -FrankTobia (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For the intro, I'd prefer "often regarded as the father of modern economics" which is also well supported and more defensible than "father of economics". Leaving aside the ancients, it's hard to ignore the Physiocrats and so on, but clearly modern economics (mainstream and also Marxian & Austrian) economics derives much more from Smith. JQ (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, and more accurate ... and also getting rid of the citations now used. It is not really accurate either .. but better. As to Patrick F. well, as an avowed conservative Libertarian which you self identify yourself as... it would appear that a biased edit of Smith could be a result of your belief in his theories. A labyrinthine defence of neutrality non withstanding. Any thing can be falsely sourced from google or the Net. If someone wanted to put that 80% of the American people think that Saddam was behind the 911 attack... it would be accurate. Should it be regarded as a presented fact somewhere on wiki? Not really.

Rewrote the sentence to this He is often regarded as the major progenitor of modern economics which led to many of our current economic theories. skip sievert (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have more than broken the multiple revert rule Patrick Flaherty. Instead of incremental improvements in language you whole sale reverted... multiple times... This is pointless edit warring that serves no purpose. skip sievert (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

JQ, how about something like "Smith is often regarded as the father of modern economics" with no quotes? I think most people don't qualify the statement, saying something like "Smith is considered the father of economics", which is why I liked the quotes at first. But adding "modern" makes it more accurate, I think. I'll change the lead accordingly, let me know what everyone thinks. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a hard look at the sentence I did Frank. It covers the information. Lets drop the father business aspect. It is disinformation... or dumbed down information at best.. (my opinon). He is not really the father of modern economics either... which is going down many different paths... so that is biased. If the information is slanted toward Libertarian belief it destroys any information value. He is often regarded as the major progenitor of modern economics which led to many of our current economic theories..... this is accurate, contains no baggage, is not biased.skip sievert (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not that he is the father of modern economics. Wikipedia is not about truth. The sentence asserts that he is "often regarded" as the father of economics. This is a true statement, and can be verified with reliable sources (note the three sources that the statement already has). I take issue with the sentence you keep pushing because it is unclear to a lay person, is unnecessarily convoluted writing, and you haven't backed it up with any sourcing. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Frank. If we can't resolve this among ourselves and keep going over the same ground, I fear that we will need to bring in other editors who can help. Remember (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of lead

I took the liberty of rewriting the lead section (felt bad I haven't contributed much content lately), and I'd like to offer some explanation. First paragraph is an executive summary: Scottish philosopher of political economy, wrote The Wealth of Nations, "father of economics", key intellectual leader. Just the most general and important stuff he did. Second paragraph I attempted a summary of his entire life. Tried to include everything notable that should be included in one lead paragraph. Third paragraph summarizes his legacy.

I think it's a start but every paragraph could use more substance. I'm expecting a lot of feedback and heavy editing of the lead. It needs a lot of work, but I feel it's a good start. I'm especially interested in seeing the legacy (3rd) paragraph get a lot more items added to it. Thanks, and let the discussion begin :) -FrankTobia (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the invisible hand to the lead's summary of his legacy. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about saying that Smith is "best known" for his writing Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments. That's the kind of statement that needs a source. I think it's much more neutral to say just that he authored the books. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is adding political disinformation to the lead. It is not neutral and is putting Smith up as an advertisement for a political theory (probably Libertarian), and the article is not an advertisement that leads around in circles to the Libertarians... is it? Adam Smith is known for his explanation of how rational self-interest and competition, operating in a social framework depending on adherence to moral obligations, can lead to economic prosperity and well-being. His invisible hand metaphor, which he used to describe this process, has gained widespread use in the discussion of free markets. Smith's work helped create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known rationales for free trade. None of that conjectural Libertarian mainstream sentiment should be in the lead. It is biased... in that spot. All that information is referenced later somehow in the article. To put it in the front is to make a cartoon out of Smith for Libertarian discussion boards.

Smith is also known for this: In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith addressed many issues that are currently also the subject of debate and dispute. Smith repeatedly attacks groups of politically aligned individuals who attempt to use their collective influence to manipulate a government into doing their bidding. In Smiths day, these were referred to as factions, but are now more commonly called special interests, a term which can comprise international bankers, corporate conglomerations, outright oligopolies, monopolies, trade unions and other groups. http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter5.htm#f1 Chapter 5. So my guess is that the article is being slanted wrongly. skip sievert (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Um. First, the reason I mentioned that sentence is because I felt like it could be improved. You don't need to engage in a diatribe against me when you're essentially agreeing with me. Second, I really wish you would stop railing against Libertarianism. You are the only person mentioning it, and it makes it seem like you're pushing a point of view. How about we all just ignore libertarianism for the time being? Third, the whole point of a lead section is to summarize the article. You're absolutely right that "All that information is referenced later somehow in the article". I disagree that "To put it in the front is to make a cartoon out of Smith for Libertarian discussion boards.", since summarizing it in the lead is precisely what a lead section is for. See WP:LEAD for more details.

All that aside, who thinks that in the first paragraph we should change "best known for his writings" to "the author of"? -FrankTobia (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can change it back, but I definitely think that we should describe in the lead somewhere how important the Wealth of Nations is to Smith's legacy and that this book is the primary reason for his notability (at least that is how I understand Smith's notability). Remember (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that The Wealth of Nations probably deserves a shout-out in the lead. How about something like "Smith is the author of The Wealth of Nations, considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics." And then the next sentence talks about Theory of Moral Sentiment, but does it more briefly, since Wealth of Nations deserves more weight in the lead. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Remember (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that those two books are mentioned in the lead mostly makes the point about "best known for" by itself. Then it's just finding the best phrasing, and I think that highlighting that WoN has been more influential than ToMS is good. So, yeah, what you say above seems good to me. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe just add Wealth of Nations in parentheses since most people know it as such rather then the full title. --Patrick (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it, and I think (I hope) I managed to account for everyone's comments. The only problem (and likely a huge one) is that now I think the last sentence reads poorly. Can we change "often regarded as" to "widely cited as"? I think it preserves the meaning while sounding a lot better. Not to mention "cited" is more NPOV than "regarded" IMHO. Hooray for copyediting and consensus :) -FrankTobia (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I decided just to change it, and we can keep playing with it if need be. What does everyone think? -FrankTobia (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Um...FrankTobia, why was this link used to reference the Adam Smith father of economics sentence in the lead... which now has 3 references on it two of which are not good citations and the third iffy to say the least http://mises.org/story/367 Founding Father of Economics - Jim Christie - Mises Institute... this is a gut bucket Austrian School of economics political (libertarian again) site that has nothing to do with the question of Smith being the father except to say.... quote... Adam Smith is widely regarded as the father of modern economics. But he wasn't. The real founder may be someone most people have never heard of. More than 40 years before Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations," Richard Cantillon authored the "Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en General.". end quote.

Now is that a citation to reference Smith as Father? That is how it has been placed.. and I am just wondering if something is a little out of control here. It is time to drop the phrase of Smith being the father, I think, and it is time to wonder about this being used as a source to show that Smith is when it is pointing out in the citation that someone else is. It is time to clear this up.... One way is to drop that phrase which the article does not need or... it could be phrased neutrally as I have suggested. To reference this now to a complete nonsense... and yes libertarian Austrian school site that is not even connected to the debate and gives another father? What is that about? Another quote from the page. FrankTobia ... why did you do that... especially as this is a content dispute. How is it that you put on a supposed citation... that is the complete opposite of what is at issue?

quote Cantillon's work was ignored for many years. Since being rediscovered in the late 19th century, it has been championed by many great economists. Perhaps it's time to recognize Cantillon as the father of economics. end quote.skip sievert (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This constant argument over the phrase "Adam Smith is regarded as the father of economics" is getting repetitive and it is going nowhere. It is easy to substantiate that people regard Smith as the father of economics. Here is are some more sources which I found in about 10 minutes. See Fifty Major Economists: A Reference Guide, By Steven Pressman, Published by Routledge, 1999, ISBN 0415134811, 9780415134811, page 207 [5] ("Adam Smith is regarded by most people as the father of economics."); Principles of microeconomics by H.L. Ahuja, Published by S. Chand, 2004, ISBN 8121903351, 9788121903356, page 19("Adam Smith, who is known as the father of economics,named his famous book on economics as..."). [6]. There is even a book entitled Adam Smith: Father of the Science of Economics (see [7]). Thus, it does not appear debatable that people widely cite Adam Smith as the father of economics. Once again, this may be an incorrect view, but on wikipedia we do not and should not argue that certain views are incorrect. We only catalog other people who argue that views are incorrect. If you want to argue that Smith is not widely regarded as the father of economics please find a source that states that position. Remember (talk)

I just did. http://mises.org/story/367 Founding Father of Economics - Jim Christie - Mises Institute... and ironically FrankTobia editor here used it here today to reference Smith as the father... for this article, which does not make a lot of sense to me, so one does not have to look particularly far for contrary information, so try and make sense out of that. Since 80% of Americans believe that Sadamm was connected 911... that is no excuse, in an encyclopedia, for sourcing it as such, is it? The internet can be used to prove almost anything.. that does not mean that faulty information should be used here. Any body gonna say any thing about Frank Tobia using this citation to prove Smith the father of economics... just put on the article today... by him.. when it says just the opposite is true, and tries to prove just the opposite? quote user Remember..It is easy to substantiate that people regard Smith as the father of economics. I don't think so. skip sievert (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you found a source arguing that Smith should not be regarded as the father of economics. But the very first sentence of the article supports the assertion that Smith is widely regarded as the father of economics by stating "Adam Smith is widely regarded as the father of modern economics." As I said above, if you have a source that states that Smith is not widely regarded as the father of economics, then please cite a source that says that. Finding a source that says that Smith should not be regarded as the father of economics is not the same thing. Nevertheless, I would say that finding sources that state that Smith should not be regarded as the father of economics (even though he is) could be referenced in a footnote to that claim that he is widely regarded as the father of economics so that the reader knows that this title has been disputed even if widely accepted. Remember (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the phrase in question about the father of economics Frank Tobia...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=232821341&oldid=232820016

Adam Smith, and put the information up above retroactively. skip sievert (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Expanded lead as to social critic aspect

Smith can be thought of as a social critic and was very critical and outspoken as to that aspect and economic practice. To bring that out more... which could be in the lead.. the last paragraph has been added some info to reflect that.

Adam Smith is known for his explanation of how rational self-interest and competition, operating in a social framework depending on adherence to moral obligations, can lead to economic prosperity and well-being. His invisible hand metaphor, which he used to describe this process, has gained widespread use in the discussion of free markets. Smith's work helped create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known rationales for free trade. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith addressed many issues that are currently also the subject of debate and dispute. Smith repeatedly attacks groups of politically aligned individuals who attempt to use their collective influence to manipulate a government into doing their bidding. In Smiths day, these were referred to as factions, but are now more commonly called special interests, a term which can comprise international bankers, corporate conglomerations, outright oligopolies, monopolies, trade unions and other groups.ref See Noam Chomsky http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter5.htm#f1 Chapter 5. skip sievert (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Skip's addition to the third paragraph of the lead section. Tone aside, the whole addition is an instance of undue weight. Cleaned up, that information would probably fit into one of the body subheadings, like the "Wealth of Nations" subheading. But the information Skip added is way less notable than everything else in the lead. The relevant guideline here appears to be WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis. Skip, if it makes sense to keep this information, it probably belongs in the body of the article. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest talking about such a change here before implenting it. Anyway, there's a good quote directly form Smith to the effect of "Bussinessmen whop gather conspire always conspire against the public." I haven't tracked down the exact placement of it. I think that quote would fit well in The Wealth of Nations section (assuming that's where it came from), without giving undue weight. Plus, it's better to pull directly from Smith than to pull from Chomsky's analysis of Smith. I do think it's funny that so much emphasis is placed on a notion (rent seeking) which Adam Smith talked about and that is a favorite concept of libertarians who dislike government regulation. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably it is better not to weight the article with Libertarian viewpoint as it is currently in the lead. For instances citing sources to an Austrian school of economics article in the paragraph above this one, http://mises.org/story/367 Founding Father of Economics - Jim Christie - Mises Institute, which really should be removed as gratuitous. It is my opinion that the article heading toward the end was slanted toward a Libertarian viewpoint which diminishes Smiths actual feelings as to the real issues. Just saying that Smith believes in an invisible hand.. free trade.. free markets etc without qualifying that information at all, leaves a false impression of Smith that the addition clears up. Bad idea to present one viewpoint as the viewpoint, when that view point is mostly referenced and supported that way by some political group... and probably mostly wrongly supported as the citation points out, in the sense that Smith was a much broader figure than that. This information should stay where it is for that reason. Improved or refined... but stay. Also it gives Smiths own sentiment and citations and quotes... not Chomsky's. If the article wants to fairly present Smith, a balance must be achieved as to his major social critic moral philosopher aspect. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Replying to myself--the quote in question is included in th WoN article. It's tempting to try to include that here. It's a frequently (mis)-quoted line which captures a small part of Smith's ambivalence towards the uglier parts of (non)-competition. At the same time, I don't think that quote can be done justice to without so much context that it becomes wp:undue, so I lean towards keeping it out. CRETOG8(t/c)

I must be missing something. The word "Libertarian" does not appear once in this article, let alone in the lead section. I wish you would stop using alleged libertarian bias as a straw man argument; can't we discuss each paragraph and sentence on its merits alone? It's clear that you're pushing an anti-libertarian point of view, and it's not helping the article.

The lead summarizes Smith's relationship vis-a-vis the invisible hand, free trade, free markets, etc., since these topics are explained in greater depth in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD for the purpose of a lead section. Perhaps you can clarify what this edit is intending to express, so I can clean up the language? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to, again, although I have already, but it is not there any more. skip sievert (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This information is pretty good in the "As a symbol..." section. I can wish it was better, but it seems reasonable to include something to that effect. What I wish is that it was coming from someone other than Chomsky (whose authoritativeness on this is questionable) and that was clearer in its specifics. Maybe I'll try to fix that (although I'm willing to hold off during FA push). CRETOG8(t/c) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Magnum opus

This term in the header may not apply to Smith in any ordinary sense. While he is famous for his two books, the term is usually reserved for someone with a huge volume of work. Here is the edit to remove the term http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=233184731&oldid=233047947 which could be viewed as {{peacock}} in this context. Magnum opus skip sievert (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree (not to be predictable or anything...). A magnum opus "refers to the best, the greatest, most popular, or most renowned achievement of an author ... and most commonly one who has contributed a very large amount of material". I don't know how you can possibly make an argument that The Wealth of Nations isn't Smith's magnum opus, though I imagine we'll be hearing it. If it's mainly that he didn't write enough, I suggest you consider his lectures to be "works" as well. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The literal meaning and not all the flowery rococo meaning is great work... to me this sounds like a proclamation and leading the reader, or telling the reader who is great... Some may not consider it a great work... others may.. but to state it as such again shades the article into a paean to Smith in the lead, and not an encyclopedic edit. The term is also used in several spiritual traditions, such as Qabalah, Thelema, and alchemy, with a complex meaning that mainly refers to the philosopher's stone so it sounds a little also like Smith as economics magician. The link Magnum opus itself, in its own given definitions, would seem to refute itself, as a good word construct to describe Smiths two famous books to choose from. There is no reason the sentence has to be used there. Why lead the reader... at the beginning? It can just be mentioned that it is famous and well known (Wealth of Nations) and the reason for Smiths notability, but to start lecturing people about a great work using a non English word construct with lots of odd meanings?. Besides... it is not sourced, even though the internet could no doubt produce some one somewhere that may have said it. skip sievert (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree. This is a common description of Smith's Wealth of Nations (see [8]) and if this work doesn't meet the definition of a magnum opus, I don't know what would. But I am willing to be persuaded if someone can suggest a better wording. Remember (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is this The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered the first modern work of economics.... then it does not resort to hype... just states what is considered known and does not become an advertisement. Magnum opus sounds like something a publisher uses in bold to clear out old inventory.. in other words... public relations in this case.skip sievert (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong, Skip. "Magnum opus" is not the jargon of admen and marketing gurus; it is a term used to refer to (among other things) the great work of an accomplished author. It is a perfectly legitimate phrase that happens to fit Smith's Wealth of Nations perfectly in this context. The term has a well-known meaning whether or not you think the connotation is ostentatious. An alternate wording would be "The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered Smith's great work and the first modern work of economics." Except at that point using the term magnum opus makes things vastly clearer to the lay reader. You are imagining connotations, Skip. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I could go with The Wealth of Nations, is considered Smith's great work or..... most notable writing (better phrase), and the first modern work of economics." That does not carry the same baggage... is not flowery, and does not have the connotations... imagined or otherwise. Maybe you should give the lay reader, who ever that is, a little more credit. skip sievert (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this is a perfect example of using the term magnum opus. The sentence as written sounds vastly superior than any of the copyedits you've given. As such I think it should stay the same. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You already said that... and it really is not a good argument for the reasons given which you may not be addressing. By just saying... this is the perfect example or just saying something is vastly superior... your are not really making a good argument, except that you think such and such. If you are serious about wanting a good article... which it is, except almost the entire way the header is written... then maybe a different viewpoint and neutrality should be the focus... instead of trumping up, which is not necessary, by using a non english... phrase... that has lots of strange baggage and a few definitions. When someone gives their opinion about something in a way that it should be accepted as truth... it makes for a not convincing rhetorical polemic. skip sievert (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all just going to have to agree to disagree. Skip, unless you can find more support to remove the term, the current consensus would appear to be to leave it in. I suggest we end the conversation there since no one seems to be persuading anyone else. Remember (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Appearance

I think the appearance section should be rolled into "Character" or something. This section does not appear to have enough content on it's own to justify a section. In addition, the sections should cover the major points of a biography's notability - appearance doesn't seem like a strong enough point to merit a sub-section. Morphh ^(talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and so merged. Really I just removed the subheading, but I think it works out. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article push

Fellow Wikipedians and editors of this fine article, I think the time has come to make a proposal. WikiProject Economics has been collaborating on this article since May, and I believe it may pass the good article criteria. I'd like consensus that the article is ready, before I submit it to WP:GAN.

I will be available most of this week to respond to the good article reviewer. My one hesitancy is of criterion 5: stability. Skip has recently been disputing a few pieces of content, though I believe in each case there has been consensus against his changes. As such I want to recommend that any potentially contentious changes be discussed here first, and only upon clear consensus will the changes be made. Apologies if this is too forward, but I want to plan for every contingency because I don't think it's right for one editor to potentially get in the way of making Adam Smith a good article.

If I receive your support, I'll submit Adam Smith to WP:GAN forthwith. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty good, but I am worried that we don't have any brief synopsis on his other works. That seems to be the glaring oversight right now in the article. Remember (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is biased toward a Libertarian viewpoint in the beginning section which turns it into a political commentary and not a balanced economic/biography related article, because it presents things with an Austrian school slant, for instance the recent citation tag mentioned above, http://mises.org/story/367 Founding Father of Economics - Jim Christie - Mises Institute. For that reason I do not think it is a good article in general... although the body of it is good, the beginning does not represent Smith neutrally as to balance in my opinion. I am not pushing an anti libertarian view, contrary to the opinion of user Frank above It's clear that you're pushing an anti-libertarian point of view, and it's not helping the article. However, the word libertarian does not have to be used overtly to gear the article toward a sentiment and throw off a balance of information. The use of the phrase Free market in the header in context, appears to do that, and the meaning is a far cry from Adam Smith's ideas... most likely. In the United States, support for free market is associated most with libertarianism. As said above this seems like gratuitous off handed referencing, shadow referencing. Libertarian consequentialism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and James M. Buchanan. skip sievert (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a libertarian, as you can easily see here and I don't see a bias problem. If anything I think we overdo the refutation of the naive notion of Smith as a proto-libertarian. And to balance the cites you noted, there's Chomsky right at the end.JQ (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Remember that his other works needs more work. Also I think the section 'Later years and writings needs a bit more content. I just brought some books on Smith so I look though some for some content. Oh did Smith have a wife and family, besides fathering economics? Nothing is mentioned in the article --Patrick (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that he never married (or had kids) and that he was close with his mother. Nice to have a source and some facts in the article though. But if you can add as much information as you can about his other works, I'm good to copyedit. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referencing the top of the article and not the bottom J.Q. The header is the part that seems iffy and loaded with libertarian buzz words. It is the part that could be made more neutral as to citations and phrases that generally are regarded as relating to that other subject (libertarianism). For that reason the article is a failure in my view as is, even though as I pointed out in my view, the body of the article is well done. Also while this sentence is now better and more realistic... since it was changed... which is what a previous issue was about, it still casts a confusing light on the article (my opinion). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=232821341 Adam Smith... in the beginning section. skip sievert (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a nice article, but there are some problems. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything in particular? --Patrick (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I improved the "other works" section per our discussion. Is Adam Smith ready for WP:GAN? I eagerly await your responses. -FrankTobia (talk)

Yep, I think it should be put forward. Nice changes. --Patrick (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Great job. Remember (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Other works

The other works section looks thin. I think it would be better if we took some of the prose about the other works out from the higher level "Published works" and put it into the sub-section. Then just give a brief summary in the higher level section. Morphh ^(talk) 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I did some brief research, and it looks like at least one of the "other works" is just a compilation of lectures that was published as a book relatively recently. Your suggestion does offer a way to immediately beef up the subsection. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How does it look now? -FrankTobia (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Morphh ^(talk) 1:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I just nominated Adam Smith for consideration at WP:GAN. I'll be around to respond to any comments or criticisms that arise during the review process. I trust the same goes for some other fine editors at WikiProject Economics. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Talk:Adam Smith/Archive 2/GA1

"Father of economics" reliable sourcing

I reverted Nbauman's reversion of my removal of two sources from the lead. I made this edit because of Protonk's very detailed good article review above. In his opinion having four sources for this one statement is excessive, and he suggested we use only the best. I agreed with his assessment, and removed two website sources, leaving in the two book sources. I think this is the best course of action. If anyone disagrees, here's the place to discuss it. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're in the lead, where sources are often optional, I think using just the best sources for this is a good idea. Morphh ^(talk) 22:51, 01 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead

This line, in the lead seems more like opinion/editorial, that tries to connect Smith to modern political groups today, and is misleading (my opinion). His invisible hand metaphor, which he used to describe this process, has gained widespread use in the discussion of free markets. Smith's work helped create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known rationales for free trade. This seems to lead the reader toward a political approach/opinion... while Smith was a very stern critic of the powers that be... including the so called free market. It would make more sense to quote his rejection of Mercantilism in the lead than his favoring free markets... without any real context.

Mercantilism was the dominant school of thought throughout the early modern period (from the 16th to the 18th century). Domestically, this led to some of the first instances of significant government intervention and control over the economy, and it was during this period that much of the modern capitalist system was established. Internationally, mercantilism encouraged the many European wars of the period and fueled European imperialism. Belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century, as the arguments of Adam Smith and the other classical economists won out. Today, mercantilism (as a whole) is rejected by all serious economists, though some elements are looked upon favourably.

So.. mentioning the invisible hand is fine ... but the part after that.. His invisible hand metaphor, which he used to describe this process, has gained widespread use in the discussion of free markets. Smith's work helped create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known rationales for free trade. ... does not really make sense as written now. How is that part adding any thing meaningful in the beginning? It seems like confused political/economic opinion leading the reader that Smith was some kind of super capitalist... border line ancestor/originator of some heterodox school or other. skip sievert (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's political at all. It is merely a statement of fact: people talk about "the invisible hand" when they talk about free markets. Indeed, it has "gained widespread use" in the discussion of free markets, which is why I think it's accurate. Could you expound upon why you think mentioning that it's a widely-used metaphor is misleading?

It's also a fact that Smith's work led to the modern field of economics. I'm less certain that he provided "one of the best-known rationales for free trade", but I'd like to hear some more compelling arguments about why it's misleading. I don't really think "super capitalist" when I read those sentences. Perhaps we could clean up the language of the last clause? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading in the context it is given... relating it to modern political opinion. The actual invisible hand idea is not connected to the way it is presented in the lead. This degrades the actual social critic aspect of Smith, which is not shown (anti mercantilism) ... but he is shown as a free trade man... this is a stretch... it is written like political rhetoric now. Another way to present it would be like this... chopping off the rhetorical polemic filler from the end:

One suggestion Adam Smith is known for his explanation of how rational self-interest and competition, operating in a social framework depending on adherence to moral obligations, can lead to economic prosperity and well-being. His invisible hand metaphor, which he used to describe this process, is a much discussed component of the study of Smith and his theories. End suggestion any way. That leaves off the opinionated commentary (my opinion).

Also... This part of that area is redundant... Smith's work helped create the modern academic discipline of economics... it is already stated a couple of different ways farther up... and the first modern work of economics. Adam Smith is widely cited as the father of modern economics... so how many times is this going to be redundantly presented in the lead, as it is again in the bottom..?. which as said, seems to not add a thing to the article, except a political/economic/opinion? skip sievert (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I still say the lead comprises facts and facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves. And I prefer the sentences the way they are. Your rewrite effectively takes the content out of the second sentence, in my opinion. Probably we should wait for more editors to weigh in before taking action. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing this. I can see an argument that the last sentence is sort of redundant. But I don't really see how the lead is trying to connect smith to "modern day" groups in any way that isn't done by the preponderance of sources out there. I'm also not sure that Smith's opinion on mercantilism belongs in the lead. It belongs in the article, for sure, but Smith's explanation of free markets solved a philosophical problem of the 18th century with regard to mercantilism. That solution is important to the history of science but not so important to Smith's contributions to economics as the discipline moved forward. And I'm not sure I understand why you don't want to accept that smith has had a large impact on free market capitalism. this impact obviously occurred largely without smith's consent (he was dead) and didn't necessarily turn upon him being the first to come up with laissez-faire ideas. It's just how history happened. IF you have a reliable source that discusses how Smith's concept of the invisible hand relates to mercantilism, not to free markets, we can talk about changing things. Until then, it is editor opinion. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned before ... In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith addressed many issues that are currently also the subject of debate and dispute. Smith repeatedly attacks groups of politically aligned individuals who attempt to use their collective influence to manipulate a government into doing their bidding. In Smiths day, these were referred to as factions, but are now more commonly called special interests, a term which can comprise international bankers, corporate conglomerations, outright oligopolies, monopolies, trade unions and other groups. ref...citation... http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter5.htm#f1 --- This information is in the context of the day of Smith... and does not confuse current interpretations of Smith... as does the article now, (toward the bottom of the lead)... with what Smith was actually saying. The way it is phrased now is to me much more editor opinion and confusing. skip sievert (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not turning any part of this article into a coatrack discussion of Chomsky. Chomsky's opinions of Adam Smith have their place, but it isn't one of prominence in this article and it certainly isn't one where I will ascribe his opinions of Smith to smith. Suffice it to say, some source other than Chomsky will be needed to certify the statement that Smith was really a class warrior. This article does not paint smith as a free market capitalist. It asserts (as do most of the reliable sources in the literature) that Smith's opinions and theories influenced the development of the ideologies behind free market capitalism. that isn't the same thing. the lead makes clear ("His invisible hand metaphor, which he used to describe this process, has gained widespread use in the discussion of free markets. ") that the widespread use of the metaphor did not occur in smith's time in the discussion of free markets. The biography as a whole is pretty soft on the notion of smith as a capitalist (which he was, unabashedly). I think if someone from a right wing group came across this bio they would freak out. So basically I don't support changing the lead to discuss mercantilism without significant sourcing that it merits ~1/3 of Smith's biography. I'm vehemently against inserting material about Class consciousness and special interest politics from a 20th century author without some serious sourcing to back the claims up. Protonk (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a Chomsky fan at all. It just seemed that he illumined this aspect of Smith well by bringing out what Smith actually wrote. Also Smiths opinion on Mercantilism... (which was truly un reigned capitalism)... is not really made clear in the article. That would counter balance this other issue (free markets, capitalism) probably pretty well... if included. skip sievert (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. I didn't mean to insinuate that you were. I just don't think Chomsky's view of smith is the mainstream view and it would do a disservice to NPOV if Chomsky's voice were heard louder than others. I also dispute the claim that mercantilism was unbridled capitalism. smith and later Ricardo (and prior to smith, turgot, Petty and Gournay) would argue that mercantilist controls over trade hurt businessmen by denying them the ability to trade freely. Smith didn't make the same arguments as Ricardo (in other words, he didn't specifically illustrate comparative advantage) but his criticism of mercantilism wasn't really what Chomsky makes it out to be. And again, I don't think the article is "biased" toward free market capitalism in any sense not presented by the facts of the matter. we may be upset that Smith's works are used to justify various capitalist excesses but that doesn't give justification to any changes to his biography solely to counteract that representation of smith. Rather, we should note that Smith was largely in favor of personal liberty and felt that the workings of business and individuals in their self-interest brought about good outcomes (versus having to mandate good outcomes). Those two points are largely shared by free-market capitalists. Smith is also misrepresented as advocating any and all form of business venture and the article notes that misrepresentation, insofar as it is important. I don't think the current article confuses the reader or ascribes to smith values and judgments that are not his own. Note in my review that I asked that the article clarify "political economy" and what that meant to Smith and his readers. That is a point where the article may improve (but it is not critical to pass GA at this point). Protonk (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of a picture I changed at the econ project talk

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Changes_to_a_relatively_high_traffic_picture.

I started that central discussion once I realized just how many articles linked to the picture I was changing. Interestingly enough, I stumbled across the possible sources when searching for fixes to the remaining image problems above. Guess I an cross those off now, eh? Protonk (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Smith source

• Blaug, Mark (2007). "The Fundamental Theorems of Modern Welfare Economics, Historically Contemplated". History of Political Economy. 39 (2). Duke University Press: 185–207. doi:10.1215/00182702-2007-001. ISSN 0018-2702. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

The article is a historical review of the 1st and 2nd theorems of welfare economics. The discussion of the 1st theorem is applicable to smith because he points out that Smith's comment about "the invisible hand" have been taken to mean that smith articulated some version of the 1st welfare theorem or that his analysis can be interpreted as such. Turns out the truth is more interesting and complex. It is a good read. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

old Legacy section

Added this disclaimer to the legacy section However, in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that the modern history of economics should properly begin with the physiocrats rather than with Adam Smith.

That paragraph of that section now reads this way..

The Wealth of Nations, one of the earliest attempts to study the rise of industry and commercial development in Europe, was a precursor to the modern academic discipline of economics. In this and other works, Smith is expounded how rational self-interest and competition can lead to economic prosperity and well-being. It also provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade and capitalism, greatly influencing the writings of later economists. Smith was ranked #30 in Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history, and he is known as the father of modern economics. However, in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that the modern history of economics should properly begin with the physiocrats rather than with Adam Smith. skip sievert (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you add a citation for that one, Skip? -FrankTobia (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"However" is a word to avoid if possible. I don't see a problem with the use here but I thought I would put that out. Maybe it can be rephrased as to avoid the perception of advancing a point of view. Morphh ^(talk) 15:01, 05 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure it could be rephrased as to avoid the perception of advancing a point of view.... however.. because a point of view was advanced... just before this point of view.. even though it may be wildly popular and much cited... the disclaimer word ... however ... sort of is reactive to the previous point of view. But feel free to edit it any which way.

Frank.. I found this statement in another article here... and now can not remember which one. I do not think it was sourced in the other article either except in context... and by wiki art.links.. For that reason I knew it would probably be an issue... because of lack of citation. . The only thing I changed in that part was to wiki article link the word physiocrats which I don't think was in this article (that physiocrats article link). So... I can see someone removing this information ... but.. if someone will take the time to track this down... and it can be cited, I assume, since it is in another article here... it would seem that the information and content can be expanded. Maybe someone could page through the section of Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought Murray Rothbard and find the exact thing to make a citation with. I am not really that familiar with Rothbard... maybe the Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought is available online to make a citation with... if it is, myself or someone could make the citation specific, or quote the chapter were he said it. I will try to find the article here on wiki, where I found the info again... or maybe .. probably, someone editing here, knows which one it is... and can check for further info. in it. If the information is wrong... which I doubt... then that other article is also wrong. I will look for the other article again. Ok I am on the trail of this.

Most famously, Rothbard demonstrated that Adam Smith's economic theories were, in many ways, a comedown from his predecessors in France and Spain. For example, Smith puzzled over the source of value and finally tagged labor as the source (a mistake Marx built on). But for centuries prior, the earliest economists knew that value came from within the human mind. It was a human estimation, not an objective construct.

When these volumes first appeared, they were celebrated in Barron's and by top scholars around the world. They succeeded in changing the way people think about economic doctrine: the beginnings (not Adam Smith, but the Spanish theologians), the dead ends (Marx), the great triumphs (Bastiat, for example), and the truly great minds (Turgot and many others he rescued from near obscurity).

http://www.mises.org/store/Austrian-Perspective-on-the-History-of-Economic-Thought-2-volume-set-P273C0.aspx?AFID=14

Another lead

Instead of subjective value, entrepreneurship, and emphasis on real market pricing and market activity, Smith dropped all this and replaced it with a labor theory of value and a dominant focus on the unchanging long-run "natural price" equilibrium, a world where entrepreneurship was assumed out of existence. Under Ricardo, this unfortunate shift in focus was intensified and systematized.

If Smith was not the creator of economic theory, neither was he the founder of laissez faire in political economy. Not only were the Scholastics analysts of, and believers in, the free market and critics of government intervention, but the French and Italian economists of the eighteenth century were even more laissez-faire-oriented than Smith, who introduced numerous waffles and qualifications into what had been, in the hands of Turgot and others, an almost pure championing of laissez faire. It turns out that, rather than someone who should be venerated as creator of modern economics or of laissez faire, Smith was closer to the picture portrayed by Paul Douglas in the 1926 Chicago commemoration of the Wealth of Nations: a necessary precursor of Karl Marx. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard105.html skip sievert (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article has (finally) been nominated and reviewed for GAN. Congratulations to everyone involved! I should have come back here sooner but I guess it's better to be late than never! Anyways, I'm here now and will be glad to help out with this effort. Great work everyone! Gary King (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject WikiProject Fife

Description

This article would cover all Fife-related articles such as places, famous people, museums, football and rugby clubs and churches to name a few. Examples would be: Kirkcaldy, Andrew Carnegie, Adam Smith, Dunfermline Abbey, Dunfermline Athletic, The Old Course and Kirkcaldy Museum and Art Gallery. This could also help support articles that really do need a lot of work while keeping general maintenance. Examples would be: Methil, Dunfermline, Cupar and a lot of the smaller towns such as Kennoway and Lower Largo. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_WikiProject_Fife. Kilnburn (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section part 2.

Included this information in the legacy section which perhaps could be edited down in content... however it may get at the basic argument as is of presenting a well rounded view of Smith..

Start

However, in his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that Joseph A. Schumpeter was able, for virtually the first time, to cast a cold and realistic eye upon the celebrated Smith. Schumpeter generally denigrated Smith's contribution, and essentially held that Smith had shunted economics off on a wrong road, a road unfortunately different from that of his continental forbears. Shumpeter said of Smith, The renowned economist seems to have had no inkling of the Industrial Revolution going on all about him. Rothbard went on to say, since Schumpeter, historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position, continues Rothbard, Smith, it is conceded, created nothing, but he was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework, Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system out of the Smithian muddle, and, while it is true that pre-Smithian writings were incisive but sparse (Turgot) or embedded in moral philosophy (Hutcheson), it is also true that there were two general treatises on economics per se before the Wealth of Nations. One was Cantillon's great Essai which, after Smith, fell into grievous neglect, to be rescued a century later by Jevons; the other, and the first book to use political economy in its title, was Sir James Steuart's (1712-80) outdated two-volume work, Principles of Political Oeconomy (1767). link citation ... from http://mises.org/story/2012

End - skip sievert (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have a copy of History of Economic Analysis in my hands and that isn't a fair judgment. I don't think it is good for the article to treat the Austrian criticism of smith with that much space. Schumpeter did comment that there were many antecedents to Smith and he also made the fair comment that smith got the level of sophistication "just right" in Wealth of Nations, but he spent dozens of pages on him and his contributions. Even for Schumpeter (someone who was not enamored with the neoclassical/classical school), there wasn't a whole lot of criticism. Go check out the Schumpeter book from the library, there is some better criticism there. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Also. Please only mark edits as minor when they meet the definition of a minor edit. I keep all edits on my watchlist, but other editors may not. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

While it may not seem fair... it is a generally accepted way of looking at Smith. I can pare down the information, if it seems to strongly phrased, or feel free to do so... but the information is what it is, and Rothbard from what I can tell... is a very well respected historian of economics. It does not glamorize Smith for sure... but is not really all that negative either.. but it may provide some balance as to other views and commonly held views of Smith. That section could probably be shortened as said and still get the info. across. I would not have hit the minor edit thing... if I had remembered not to. skip sievert (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, fair or no, Rothbard is mischaracterizing Schumpeter's view of Smith. You are right that some criticism of Smith and his Legacy is needed, but we should steer clear of having the prose repeat the views of a prominent historian from the Austrian school. I suggest a few things:

1. Read Blaug (the article I linked on your talk page). That is a fairly neutral (from an econ school standpoint) and cogent criticism of smith that belongs in the article.
2. Find a better source than the Mises institute.
3. Tone down the obvious praise for relatively obscure essays prior to smith and the pretty blunt criticism of Smith above. That criticism applies neatly if we adopt the POV of the Austrian school. It does less so for a general reader.
4. Finally, please remove the change until you have some consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to edit war to keep it down but I would rather you seek some discussion here before changing it. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pared down the info and made it less dramatic...

In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that Smith was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework. He goes on to say that Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system from Smiths work. It is also true that there were two general treatises on economics per se before the Wealth of Nations. One was Cantillon's great Essai which, after Smith, fell into grievous neglect, to be rescued a century later by Jevons; the other, and the first book to use political economy in its title, was Sir James Steuart's (1712-80) outdated two-volume work, Principles of Political Oeconomy (1767).

 ::::EconomicEnd

Further discussion

I really think some form of this interesting perspective should be here. Rather than just dumping the information could it just be edited and not a whole sale revert. The information is very interesting and brings more depth and perspective to the article.

#Find a better source than the Mises institute. How come? I am not a fan of theirs... or would ever promote them in any way. They are hosting information of a quote from a book that is unconnected with them as to content. Rothbard seems to be a highly respected author on economics. My impression, from not really having read him before.. is that he is a in depth analyst --- whether one agrees or not with him... Let me pare the info a little more... to size it down. Again this perspective seems like a real comparative aspect on Smith. Why not help edit this perspective also Protonk? I am just putting it out there also for others to do that. skip sievert (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer this one. The mises instutite, much like the New School, does a great job hosting information and quotes and "cite where you got it" is an appropriate admonition here. BUT, the institute itself is a pretty POV source, so information from there (even quotes) will be scrutinized. Since this article is likely to eventually pass GA and move to FAC, that source would have to be changed (probably to the original book) in order for it to be passed. So adding it now just means removing it later, assuming that another source exists for the material or idea in general. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(oudent) As for not helping, I've made enough edits here to not be comfortable passing it to GA should I make too many more. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is not my favorite article to work on. The information I got it on.. is only an excerpt of the book... I would think that then would pass scrutiny. Any one can source the statement now. It is just info. from the Rothbard book... and that is all it is. I can look around for another source or someone else could find it I think, that would not contain the baggage... if that is what it is. On the article previously things are sourced by that site.

I scaled it down again to In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argued that Smith was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework. He goes on to say that Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system from Smiths work. I am not trying to make the information inflammatory. Just get the different perspective across, which Rothbard seems very talented on multi side perspective. Do you think it would be better to leave the Mises citation off... and just look for another... using the book text?? as that one does? Is there a complete copy or other good source of Rothbards books that would work just as well probably. The mises citation link is expendable. The only reason I used that one is because it was handy and was quoted material to Rothbards book. skip sievert (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Mises citation and made this other one Murray N. Rothbard, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Chapter 16 Vol. I and II. Edward Elgar Publishing. February 1995. ISBN 1-85278-962-X. skip sievert (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section

Added this to the legacy section. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) discusses the benefits of the division of labour. Smith noted that an individual should invest a resource, for example, land or labour, so as to earn the highest possible return on it. Consequently, all uses of the resource should yield an equal rate of return (adjusted for the relative riskiness of each enterprise). Otherwise reallocation would result. This idea, wrote George Stigler, is the central proposition of economic theory, and is today called the marginal productivity theory of income distribution. French economist Turgot had made the same point in 1766. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html Adam Smith, Biography: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Library of Economics and Liberty.

Value theory was important in classical theory. Smith wrote that the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" as influenced by its scarcity. Smith maintained that, with rent and profit, other costs besides wages also enter the price of a commodity. Other classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value'. Classical economics focused on the tendency of markets to move to long-run equilibrium. skip sievert (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about these paragraphs in the legacy section. It looks like they would better fit in the section about The Wealth of Nations. Can you try rephrasing the two paragraphs to more explicitly discuss his legacy with respect to the information you added? -FrankTobia (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can try... or you can. I tried to touch on things not already mentioned in the Wealth of Nations section... but connected with an over view of Smith. I tried to keep the info. as simple as possible. These were over arching things connected with Smith (legacy) aspects... I don't think the article directly mentioned 'labour theory of value' in a context before... and that seems like vital information (legacy). The little Smith quote also about what he called the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" as influenced by its scarcity... I do not think that was in the article and it is another legacy thing as to where Smith was conceptualizing from. Also just a bit of context info... as to legacy seems appropriate... since the article makes the claim... true or untrue at least a couple of times about father hood and by putting Smith a little more in context with his surroundings and contemporaries, these paragraphs may balance that out a little more. Mentioning Wealth of Nations in the legacy section a few times could make sense... because of the over arching impact of it... and it is the thing he is identified with as to legacy.... and its contents are the main context for the article in the sense that as his so called Magnum Opus it really is the context Smith is viewed through, mostly. skip sievert (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed this paragraph which was a little conflicted in the information before... and I think makes more sense now in relation to the actual citation.

Start

In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argues that historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position on Smith and his accomplishments, Rothbard contends that Smith created nothing, and was not the great synthesizer and systematizer as claimed by many. He goes on to say that Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system from Smiths work.

End

Here is the page from the book used for sourcing http://mises.org/story/2012 in the article citation itself .... just the connector to the book was used (Isbn #)... and not the actual text of the mises article, as I understand that Austrian source sites are not exactly smiled on currently or seen as over weighted by some... It may be better to source this with the actual copy of Rothbards book chapter though if any one has an online source of it, that does not carry baggage as to who is posting it. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no justification for including this stuff. Rothbard is not a major figure in Smith scholarship and his remarks here are self-contradictory. If he neither created anything nor systematized existing work, what could he have left for his disciples. But the main point is WP:WEIGHT. There is no justification for filling Wikipedia with Rothbard fancruft.JQ (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Rothbard. He was very clever though in explaining his ideas about Smith which many outside his so called group (which I am not connected to in any way), could easily agree with... so no this is not planted Austrian economic information by a fan... far from it. By removing the information you may be making this merely more of a fan site for Smith... mostly, without any critical or intellectual teeth. Rothbard explained his ideas and the whys and what fors of his sentiments and did a good job. What do you mean his remarks are self-contradictory? Did you read the page? What example are you talking about? This is not about Rothbard fancruft... it is about providing some much needed critical information as to Smith in the article. I strongly disagree with your opinion of fancruft being implanted.. to some other purpose... the purpose, unrelated to fancruft, is illumining Smith, what the article is supposed to do.

Also... it seems to me you misread the quoted page Since Schumpeter, historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position. Smith, it is conceded, created nothing, but he was the great synthesizer and systematizer, the first one to take up all the threads of his predecessors and weave them together into a coherent and systematic framework. (Now Rothbards voice) But Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system out of the Smithian muddle.

Info. as to page edit citation http://mises.org/story/2012

That is not contradictory as you say above in your edit or critique of the information. Rothbard is making a point about other historians it is not his point... this is a fine point... or the information has to be carefully read and it took me a little to understand also in the context, he is writing it, and that he is drawing out a point with. skip sievert (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But his argument that Rothbard isn't a Smith scholar stands. I also feel that Rothbard's criticism doesn't work well in the article without a rebuttal. This author is basically saying "smith messed up our understanding of economics so much that it took two great 19th century economists to put it back together again. The quote also includes a misrepresentation of Schumpeter. Rothbard suggests that Schumpeter says smith did nothing but collect and condense prior knowledge for a mid-level audience and that isn't the case. Schumpeter takes pains to note that Wealth of Nations wasn't a work of high theory (so that part is correct) but points out that this explains the impact of it. Prior works of sufficient sophistication were too philosophical or obtuse to reach policymakers and lecturers. Schumpeter also spends about 1/3 of his book explaining about the spotty transmission of knowledge between schools and over time in economics. turgot and petty and other's didn't publish in an era where all scholars were aware of all works. Some advances were made and forgotten (or relegated to a small group of followers). Some were remembered and misused. Some were advanced only partially. To say that Smith only synthesised and systematized this mix of ideas is non-sensical. We can argue quite strongly that Smith drew from Hume and the physiocrats. We can argue weakly that Smith drew from Petty and other statisticians. The strength of the argument evaporates entirely if we attempt to claim that the wealth of nations was primarily a derivative work. That's why Schumpeter doesn't make that claim. As for rothbard's second claim, the reason it is contradictory is because it only makes sense in light of the first claim. In other words, look at:

Smith's work was the reverse of coherent and systematic, and Ricardo and Say, his two major disciples, each set themselves the task of forging such a coherent system out of the Smithian muddle.

Absent some claim that smith set out to build a complete system, this claim is meaningless. Just like you point out (correctly) above, Smith didn't invent the notion of Walrassian equlibrium, although we often informally ascribe it to him. To say "Smith failed to describe how markets in perfect competition would come to an equilibirum and Walras had to clean up the mess later" is a coutnerfactual statement, but it sounds pretty meaningful if you don't think about it too much. We can't peer into Smith's mind to see what he set out to do with Wealth of Nations, but before we endorse broad claims of failure from a historian with an axe to grind, we should see if they make sense. In this case, they don't. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is claiming that Smith set out to build a complete system? Not the article by Rothbard... he mentions that Smith was a shameless copy cat of others. So I fail to see your point. As far as coutnerfactual statements... you may have to explain that. I do not follow. Peering into Smiths head? Not the purpose of citing a critical opinion of Smith. Broad claims about failure? Rothbards commentary is not just that... he explains in context what he is claiming... and very cleverly. Ax to grind? It may seem that way to you... but as someone who did not know Rothbard from Adam ... a few days ago... I think you may be wrong.. and assuming Rothbard was not a vindictive ideologue maybe in order. He seems right on in most of his estimation of Smith to me... Smith lack of connection to the industrial revolution etc... this is just fact. Rothbard not being a Smith scholar? So? He is a economics scholar... and not every scholar that wrote about Smith was giving accurate information. As an over view person ...who perhaps had some biases this Rothbard person was an excellent writer that apparently is very popular. He decidedly did a good job of breaking down Smith... especially Smiths seeming lack of understanding or noticing the Industrial revolution going on around him. skip sievert (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

you are missing the forest for the trees. You are basically suggesting that we insert, without rebuttal, the opinion of an economic scholar that Adam Smith is responsible for nothing and merely copied previous work and muddled everything up for later scholars. I am saying that isn't going to fly. The Rothbard quote has been pared down (enough to remove the inherent contradiction I mentioned, sorry for mxing up two quotes) so that we don't see rothbard's POV, which is that he has a bone to pick with Smith's definition of 'value'. What I am saying is that the quote should be removed from the article until we can find some way to express it neutrally. As it stands we have the article itself, presenting smith in a relatively mainstream fashion, and then this enormous outlier which effectively announces that the rest of the points made in the article are blatantly false. There are kernels of truth in what Rothbard is saying. I'm not happy with the article summarizing him in whole, uncritically. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I reformulated it... and now it may be good to that purpose.. plus got in the other critical information that is repeated by many about Smith. His lack of understanding the significance of the Industrial revolution

Start

In his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Murray Rothbard argues that historians of economic thought have largely retreated to a fallback position on Smith and his accomplishments, Rothbard contends that Smith created nothing, but instead mostly collated material, and was not the great synthesizer and systematizer as claimed by many. Also (according to Rothbard), Smith seemingly failed to observe the beginning of the Industrial revolution with its effects going on around him.

End

Now I think these three paragraphs probably make mention of the main contentions about Smith. This I think takes the sting out of the comment but still presents the information for what it is... a well thought out critique that hits on the main criticisms of Smith... at least the ones that seem to blatantly stick out. skip sievert (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For the 'legacy section', we should also have some comment about how textbook authors and economists attribute the roots of Walrassian equilibrium to smith but that smith didn't really say anything about equilibrium (invisible hand comments notwithstanding). That deserves maybe a sentence. If you need a copy of the Blaug article, email me and I'll send one to you. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I want to take on the Walrassian equalibrium aspect after looking into that a bit.. http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/walras.htm and http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/ricardian.htm but maybe John Quiqqin could look into that. skip sievert (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Without endorsing the Rothbard quote, I've tried to reorganise the legacy section so it is actually about Smith's legacy rather than a hodge-podge of summary and assessments. JQ (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we replace Rothbard with something critical of Smith from Schumpeter who is, almost certainly, Rothbard's main source here and who was a notable economist whose opinions justify inclusion. JQ (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I already quoted Schumpeter in an earlier version and that was loudly complained about... it is further up in the talk page. Rothbard does quote Schumpeter in that chapter... so any one digging around there would find Schumpeter any way. skip sievert (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It was loudly complained about because it was rothbard quoting schumpeter and rothbard was getting it wrong. Not because schumpeter quotes/ideas weren't wanted. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not being a Smith fan or invested one way or the other ... except to balance a little what seemed like a paean of Smith in the article (repeating over and over about free markets... being a father... and founding capitalism..etc) I have to agree with Rothbard that Smith's book seems like a catch basin of what ever people want to ascribe to it... but yes... recite and change things. My only interest here has been to bring out the other issues of Smith or the other sides of Smith that seemed to be not being talked about or out of balance... and seems so still... after all... Smith was a complex character and deserves to be looked at from all angles. I expect to be edited mercilessly. My opinion is that is the best way to improve information. With a few people slicing and dicing... with the aim of making something clear and unbiased. skip sievert (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gates comment

Gates comment I think is rather silly in the legacy section about Smith.

In line with such trends, Bill Gates spoke of Adam Smith's legacy at the World Economic Forum on 24 January 2008: "Adam Smith, the very father of capitalism and the author of Wealth of Nations, who believed strongly in the value of self-interest for society, opened his first book with the following lines: 'How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.

The Smith quotation is excellent and could be presented for what it is, in the legacy section with a different framing of Smiths comment... without the Gates Commentary about capitalism introducing it, which is kind of a ridiculous statement (on Gates part)... for a lot of reasons... one being the Marxists used Smiths theory of labor glorification as a rationale for Communism... that is just one thing... I could think of lots of other reasons to ditch Gates, who is gratuitously given an undeserved spot light ... introducing a very good piece of information about Smiths legacy in a kind of ridiculous (my opinion) way. The antecedents of Capitalism have been around since Sumer... there has been a working capitalism named or unnamed. So... I think this reflects poor scholarship or undeserved pointing out of opinion about what Gates thinks in the article. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Part two: legacy section

Added this back in... it is not overtly mentioned elsewhere... and mention of scarcity and labor theory of value is very important in Smith and the legacy section. Value theory was important in classical theory. Smith wrote that the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it" as influenced by its scarcity. Smith maintained that, with rent and profit, other costs besides wages also enter the price of a commodity. Other classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value'. Classical economics focused on the tendency of markets to move to long-run equilibrium. skip sievert (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As Frank stated above, this seems to fit much better in the section in WoN where I put it. The labor theory of value was an important part of Smith's legacy to the classical economists and to Marx, but the idea was abandoned after the marginal revolution, so it seems confusing to mention it in the legacy section. If you want to say something about Smith's legacy in Marxist thought (I'm only conjecturing this), it would be good to do so explicitly.JQ (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like this JQ?... except paired down a lot? J.Q why would that be confusing? There is a time line that any one interested could follow. We are talking about Smiths legacy and not the marginal revolution... which probably used Smith to prove their point that Smith was wrong in their opinions. Isn't that a whole separate issue?

Marxist (later, Marxian) economics descends from classical economics. It derives from the work of Karl Marx. The first volume of Marx's major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital. The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing.

A body of theory later termed 'neoclassical economics' or 'marginalism' formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term 'economics' was popularized by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall as a concise synonym for 'econonic science' and a substitute for the earlier, broader term 'political economy'. This correspnded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences. Neoclassical economics systematized supply and demand as joint determinants of price and quantity in market equilibrium, affecting both the allocation of output and the distribution of income. It dispensed with the labour theory of value inherited from classical economics in favor of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more general theory of costs on the supply side.

Smith should not be just exalted in the article as the father of economics and free markets... as he was the father of communism also. Correct? skip sievert (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraphs above dont' have anything to do with smith and aren't referencing sources that show smith's connection to these ideas. The article now asserts that smith was responsible for the labor theory of value then moves on (independently) to talk about the labor theory of value and its connection to marginalism and marxism. The "political economy" vs. "economics" bit has some use but I'm sure some secondary sources (rather than writings at the time) can be used to establish some kind of timeline for the use of the term. The rest of this is pretty tenuously connected. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tenuous? J.Q. suggested mentioning Marx's connection with Smith... this is a main part of Smith's legacy is it not? and it is well established that Marx took up Smith's ideas on labor theory... which is a main part of the glorification of toil the Marx also got wrong... because of the industrial revolution changing all that while he was writing and really changing it shortly after. Also, it kind of explains the eventual change of one focus to another as to mainstream economics... from political economy of Smith to neoclassical economics.

Any suggestions for editing this further into a different scaled down version ?

Start

Classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value', later Marxian economics descends from classical economics also using Smith's labor theories in part. The first volume of Marx's major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital. The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding of mainstream economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing. Ironically Smith is often cited for being the conceptual builder of free markets in Capitalism, and also cited as a main contributor to Communist theory, via Marx.

A body of theory later termed 'neoclassical economics' or 'marginalism' formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term 'economics' was popularized by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall as a concise synonym for 'economic science' and a substitute for the earlier, broader term 'political economy' used by Smith. This corresponded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences. Neoclassical economics systematized supply and demand as joint determinants of price and quantity in market equilibrium, affecting both the allocation of output and the distribution of income. It dispensed with the labour theory of value of which Smith was most famously identified with in classical economics, in favor of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more general theory of costs on the supply side.

End skip sievert (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm suggesting that we find and include a reliable, mainstream source that says "Smith's idea of the labor theory of value influenced marx." or something to that effect. It sets off warning bells when I see secondary sources used for definitions of things and primary sources used for connections between concepts. IF the only connection is that we say smith presented a labor theory of value, marx presented a labor theory of value, therefore smith and marx are related, it is a non-starter. Protonk (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and replace any citations with better ones. Since it seems the information is correct though, the sourcing citations, could be improved. That would no doubt change the language of how the ideas are presented also. skip sievert (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think there are a couple of problems with the section on value theory. Any discussion of this that includes Marx and Smith should also make mention of Ricardo who also had a labour theory of value and was chronologically in between Smith and Marx. Also the statement 'Ironically Smith is often cited for being the conceptual builder of free markets in Capitalism, and also cited as a main contributor to Communist theory, via Marx.' is I think incorrect. Marx's Capital was an analysis of the mechanisms of capitalism, not communism. In fact Marx wrote very little on communism, so to describe his work as 'communist theory' is incorrect. I do think that it is important to mention Adam Smith's theory of value though. It is a central element of his work and is in strong contrast to the more modern neo-classical theories that he is often cited as the forefather of. Neo-classical theory is built around a marginalist concept of value. I don't think it is incorrect to mention Marx in the article, but I think it should be in the context of a wider discussion of Classical Political Economy, and this should include Smith, Ricardo, Marx and possible Malthus and John Stewart Mill as well.Jomichell (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IQ ? Genius?

Equivalent to Isaac Newton?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 22:13, Oct 24, 2008 (UTC)