Talk:Richard Cantillon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some corrections

Cantillon was not a Physiocrat. He can also not be claimed exclusively by the Austrians as their precursor, because the entire Classical school happened in between (for over a century). They like(d) him, that is true, but they cannot claim him. By the way, claiming that Cantillon had knowledge of Monetarism, a 20th century current in economics, is clearly an anachronism. Instead I think he know that Law was running a pyramid scheme, and that timing was the key to fortune. I have instead inserted the "New School" History of Economics text, to be completed from a number of other authoritative sources in the coming weeks.

Sorry, I should of course have signed that Robertsch55 14:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Much of the text here seems to be copied from http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/cantillon.htm Fitzcantab (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential copyvio

Hi all.

This text in the lede paragraph may be a violation of someone's copyright.

This much is known: he was an Irishman with a Spanish name who lived in France most of his life. He is said to have speculated profitably in Compagnie Perpetuelle des Indes shares, unlike so many others, during the John Law adventures, making a fortune of some twenty million livres before moving to England. He died in a fire, allegedly set by his discharged cook, in his London home.

I recognize having read the text previously, possibly in a source that I have, over time, used in this article. I was surprised not to find it is quotation marks and cited. Upon further (very brief) investigation, it seems to have been added to the Richard Cantillon article before I first edited the article in early 2009.

The quote may be from Jevons in the 1880s, so it might be in the public domain. But maybe it's from a later source (Higgs, Hayek?). We need to get to the bottom of this, and I don't have time to pursue it right now, so I'm writing this note to flag all editors that this work needs to be done. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

After looking into this the material definitely was copied from somewhere, as it all showed up in this edit and appeared prior to then here. I blanked the article as a possible copyright problem, so maybe the text can be verified to be from a PD source, but if not it will have to be removed or rewritten. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to assuage fears on the status of the article, I have begun editing a new version in my sandbox. My intention is to bring the article all the way to featured article status. This task may be more daunting than previously believed, given that I have been inactive on Wikipedia for over a year, but it would be a good way of getting back into the game, so to speak. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in salvaging articles on economists in general as opposed to just this one, I should let you know that all substantial prose contributions from Robertsch55 (talk · contribs) appear to be copyright violations and will have to be dealt with similarly to this article. His contributions are listed and sorted for evaluation at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Robertsch55. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)