Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Cantillon/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:33, 5 October 2010 [1].

Richard Cantillon edit

Richard Cantillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk) 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cantillon, although a relatively obscure figure outside of the profession of economics (and even within, admittedly), is considered by some economists—notably Schumpeter, Rothbard, and Jevons—to be the "true" father of economics (as opposed to Adam Smith). I had been interested in Cantillon for some time, and had been planning to re-write the article. Between 22–24 September I radically improved the article, put it through a GA review, and had it looked over. I feel that it is ready for FAC. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed this. It seems science direct doesn't like direct linking (can't find a "permanent link"). Nevertheless, I added the doi and removed the link. I did the same for the redirect (Brewer's article), since I'm not sure where the redirect leads (I am not redirected, since I have access). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I peer reviewed this on the 25th. At the time all the citation issues were resolved. This article is good on 2c. This article is good on 1c. There was an outstanding issue from peer review with Marx trivium; but it doesn't impact on 1c in anyway. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Marx, I added volume I of Capital, and used it as another reference behind the relationship between Cantillon and Smith. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to incorporate volume III. I have been trying, but it comes out forced. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't come, don't force it. Marx's literature survey was broad and deep, meaning that he often recontextualised previous economists in novel fashions not immediately relevant to their own work's encyclopaedic importance. In this case the subsistence theory of wage (the case you've treated) is probably more relevant than theories of surplus value (volume III related). Fifelfoo (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image issue: just File:An Essay on Economic Theory.jpg. Did Ludwig von Mises Institute license this under CC-BY-3.0? If yes, then that requires an OTRS ticket to be attached (see commons:Commons:OTRS). If not, then it is a copyright violation (the icon and layout can be copyrighted) unless this page is an exact replica of the original 1756 page. Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book is licensed under CC-BY-3.0. I read the page you link to; do I need someone from the Mises Institute to give me verbal permission to use the image of the book? Otherwise, if you open the pdf (linked to in the article) you can check the copyright status—it is an exact replica of their new edition of Essai. If I do need written permission, that shouldn't be difficult either. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the pdf on the file's wikipage, but if that isn't enough I will get written permission. The irony is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute publishers are very anti-IP. JonCatalán(Talk) 05:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say there is a problem: the pdf does not contain the page concerned. On http://mises.org/store/Essay-on-Economic-Theory-P10400.aspx, where the image appears, it states "© Copyright 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute. All rights reserved." The institute should send an email, stating their licensing (in the form of the template in the earlier link provided or equivalent), to the OTRS team. Alternatively, you can be the middle man, forwarding the granting of the permission on email to the OTRS (the OTRS just wants a clear proof of permission with an email trail back to the copyright holder). Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That copyright pertains to the website, not the book (it is the same copyright used throughout the store). The cover of the book is licensed with the rest of the book, which if you look at the pdf (which, unfortunately, doesn't contain the cover that the physical copy does) the license is a CC-BY-3.0. In any case, I will email Institute's main editor tonight and ask him to give me written permission, which I will then forward to Wikipedia. Is there any way they can do this for all of their book covers (as in, a single email—so that I don't have to continue asking them for permission they've already granted)? JonCatalán(Talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An email that states to that purpose ("We release the book covers that are our own creations and not derivative of others under the Creative Commons 3.0 license.") or something would be accepted by the OTRS team, I think. Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS is sent. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS has been validated on commons ([2]). JonCatalán(Talk) 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not too enamoured with using a book to represent a person. That said, it is said that no portraits of Cantillon has been found.[3][4] However, lesser known sites claim there is one.[5][6] Even so, one has to know the veracity of this portrait. Can anyone shed a light on this? Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my research, there is no archived portrait of Richard Cantillon. I thought the book's cover was the best possible alternative. The reason I used the new edition, by the way, is because it is the only edition that is licensed under CC-BY-3.0. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer leaving the Infobox blank then, the book's title page can be in the article somewhere else. Furthermore, why not use the very first edition (the original French), which is in the public domain in US {{PD-1923}} and France ({{PD-old}})? Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave the infoxbox blank, but I will have to search for a good image of the original cover. The only ones I've seen so far are black and white scans that are pretty poor in quality. JonCatalán(Talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is this 1892 reprint of the 1755 book. Jappalang (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose only, not including endsections, but I don't know what "occurs specifically where the new money is bid towards" means, and I'm wondering if you meant "abate" when you said "to abet the downward pressure". Fair warning: I did a fair amount of copyediting and made what I hope were reasonable guesses, but I plead innocence if I got your meaning wrong, so please check everything I did today. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at them, except the last few (which I am going over now). I appreciate the time and effort. The copyedit looks great, and yes that should be abate—I confused verbs. What is meant when it says "occurs specifically where the new money is bid towards" it means to convey, for example, that what will result from an increase in the supply of dollars is an increase in the prices of the goods which those dollars are bid towards. In other words, it won't immediately lead to a rise in all prices, simply those which are relevant to the exchanges being made with the new money. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading ... when you say "debtor" (a person who owes you money), do you mean "creditor" (a person you owe money to)? - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's all right then. Btw, have someone check the spelling on the ise/ize endings and also the hyphenation, I'm only good with American English, which this isn't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: it may be better per WP:WEASEL to say who you mean, rather than just "it has been argued that Petty's influence has been overstated" ... this doesn't bother everyone because all they have to do is check the inline reference you provide, but it's safer to add it to the text. - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done JonCatalán(Talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with a few comments:
    • What does "Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général" translate to in English? Would be good to include that.
    • It's unclear where Count Daniel O'Mahony is from (and who he was a general for!).
    • Has anyone criticized Murphy's theory that Cantillon escaped to Suriname?
    • "Cantillon's treatise was largely neglected during the 19th century" Why? Because everyone was so focused on Adam Smith? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ed, thanks for the support and the comments! I hope I can clear up the issues:
  1. I added the translation (note, the cover of the book I use as an image is different; the Mises Institute's title is not a translation).
  2. He was Irish, and I added that to the article, but none of my sources specify what army he fought for (it does mention he had connections with the Stuarts, but I can only speculate who he fought for).
  3. Not that I know of.
  4. Murray Rothbard blames Adam Smith, but there could be a host of other reasons—the fact that it was not officially published until 1755, the rise of the physiocratic school (which did depart from Cantillon's theory), et cetera.JonCatalán(Talk) 03:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: All sources look good. It would be helpful if original publication dates were indicated for old publications, e.g. Marx, Smith. Also:-

  • Please indicate which of the journal articles require a subscription for on-line access.
  • Brewer 1988: Page no. given in ref 54 but not 53
  • Thornton 2007: page number given in ref 55, not in 53
  • Ref 104 Brewer: 1988 or 1992?

Otherwise no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; regarding original publication dates, is that included in parenthesis after the publication date of the specific edition I'm using? JonCatalán(Talk) 14:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another question; is there a template to insert to denote that a subscription is needed? Also, regarding ref. 53, I mean the entire journal article in all three cases. Ref. 104 has been clarified (1992). Thanks. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For original publication details, I usually add a note at the end of the bibliography entry, e.g. for Das Kapital: "(Originally published 1867, Otto Meisner, Hamburg)". You could probably just say "(Originally published 1867)"
  • For subscription items the template is (subscription required). Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. I played around with the template, seeing where it looked best and where it would have highest utility. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ironed out what presenation inconcistencies I could find YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I went over this in detail at the peer review and I believe made some edits myself. Very interesting article on an obscure figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Richard_Cantillon/archive1&oldid=1086103099"