Talk:Adam Smith/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Adam Smith on the OLL

I would like to put up a link on Adam Smith on the Online Library of Liberty on the External Links, as we have scholarly essays, a timeline, the Glasgow Edition of Adam Smith's Works, The Cannan edition of "The Wealth Of Nations," and John Rae's "Life Of Adam Smith."

The link to all of this is here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&person=44

Android1961 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Andrew

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Android1961 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

new external link

How about adding this extenal link to the page http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/archives/exhibitions/smith/ where digitized images of Adam Smith documents will be found LesleyNov5 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Reading the critics that some mention form the Austrian School and Chomsky, I think we should start a criticism section. There are just far too many critics against Smith ideas. Don't get me wrong he's one my favorite authors, but there should be room for criticism. For example everyone thinks that he came up with the ideas of pin-making but it's more than certain he copied from an earlier publication. He still has an oustanding explanation of division of labor, but he "plagiarized" it this example. Of course now this is an academic crime, but it was not "required" to quote people at that time. So it's still cool. My economics teacher told me years ago, and I have confirmed it online. "the needle production in Ibn Khaldiin (1402) and Carl (1722-3), the pin production in Carl, Chambers's Cyclopedia(l741). Source: The Economics of Division of Labor from Xenophon to Hayek (1945): A Review of Selected Literature by Guang-Zhen Sun --C9900 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRITICISM and instead try to integrate this information into other sections rather than placing it in a section titled "Criticism". Gary King (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

adam Smih

I want to know more about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.232.133 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• ok. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Number one the name was Smith. Generally first names are in caps also. skip sievert (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Appearance in games

I am wondering if games that reference Adam Smith should be under Legacy. These include Civilization II (and later), Colonization and derivative works, such as FreeCiv and FreeCol. In Civilization II and FreeCiv, building the Wonder of the World "Adam Smith's Trading Company", allows buildings with an upkeep cost of 1 have their upkeep reduced to 0. In Colonization and FreeCol, getting Adam Smith as a Founding Father (even though he never went to the new world), let's the player build factories. Nutster (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These are insignificant appearances that do not require a mention in the article. Gary King (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Supported monopolies?

I reverted this edit for two reasons:

• a citation is needed to support a statement which seems unlike Adam Smith.
• that section should be written in summary style - it should summarize information in The Wealth of Nations. I see nothing in the main article to support the edit.

If the edit is in fact correct it should first be added to Wealth of Nations (with citation), then added here. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Korten Reference and NPOV

I'm a bit nervous about the use of David C. Korten's When Corporations Rule the World as a reference in the section on the Wealth of Nations. It looks to me like Korten's book is an anti-capitalist opinion piece rather than a neutral source. For example, the first sentence of his own introduction reads

The global economy has become like a malignant cancer, advancing the colonization of the planet's living spaces for the benefit of powerful corporations and financial institutions.

I'm not making a value judgment about Korten or his book, but rather expressing concern about its use outside a "criticism" section.

--Mike Duskis (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good catch. There is another problem with those sentences. The section should be a summary of what is written in the main article, The Wealth of Nations. I don't see anything in the Wealth article to support Korten's sentences. E.g. Wealth doesn't mention "concentration", "distort", "fair return", "optimal" or "allocate". My inclination is to delete those (recently added) sentences as non-neutral and not supported by the main article. If they were first added to the main article with good references, then perhaps they could be included in the summary section in this article. What say others? Sbowers3 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly Vandalism?

This otherwise excellent distillation of Adam Smith information currently ends with a mention of his ...Having to pay for Parking Tickets. Which I assume to be a short paragraph of vandalism. Should prolly' be removed. Otherwise I thought was a great overview & thanks for all the work folks have done on it. Sincerely, --MBD--71.6.81.62 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the catch. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

wealth of nations

Smith is oft cited, rarely read. I think we need to focus on a few different author's readings of Smith. I'd propose that Jerry Muller's book should at least be mentioned. It has ISBN 978-0-691-00161-6. 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it hurt to also add links to his The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BraedenP (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean besides the sections devoted to each both? Gary King (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Add

This article doesn't contain the word property at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DAvid hume was not atheist he comment God can be understood from miracle and the nature itself is the miracle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.52.166 (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did he invent capitalism?

I'm a little confused on this one, I was under the impression capitalism is a natural eternal system, so why does it need to "learned"? 71.218.115.207 (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say this in the article? Gary King (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Longest baptism in history?

According to the first sentence as it reads right now, Adam Smith's baptism took over 67 years...
Solution 1: Delete the word 'baptised', and link the date to the explanation given in the section about 'Early life'.
Solution 2: Insert the word 'died' before the second date, thereby shortening the man's unfortunate scottish water torture.
I'll be bold and put solution 2 into effect... --Forelyn (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

taxes

what does taxes have to do with laissez-faire? suggesting not paying taxes is not laissez-faire, it is anarchy. however, Adam Smith's view seems to advocate what we would call a flat tax. In fact, much of what seems to be given as an argument against Smith being a free market economist, seems to suggest he was one. Besides laissez faire is a general idea, not a specific doctrine. the question should be did smith support less government intervention than was practiced at the time? anyway, Smith's theory that about people acting in self interest is the basis for the "greed is good" concept. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ya he did support less government intervention but saw a role for them in infrastructure. And he was right. State control leads to regulatory capture and unintended consequences. He made Britain the richest country of the best part of the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. A person who advocates no taxes is not an anarchist, because libertarians do so all the time, at yet nobody believes libertarians, such as William Penn, who allowed his colony of Pennsylvania to pay almost no taxes at one time, believed in anarchy. Government can have a role in providing justice to people who were cheated in fraud out of dealing with another human being or enforce laws to protect the people's life, liberty, and property from each other or foreign powers, but the government didn't necessarily have to involve itself in the affairs of the free market in order to be a government in the first place. -9/30/10

Cantillon

I am currently working on the article for Richard Cantillon (I hope to be done with the content by Friday, so I can then focus on the prose and peer review), so I will be detailing any possible influence he may have had on Adam Smith. I am a bit surprised to find that Cantillon is not listed as one of Smith's influences, when in fact Cantillon is one of the few economists Smith cites in Wealth of Nations. I didn't want to add Cantillon in, because I figured this topic has been visited before. Is there any reason why he is not included as an influence? JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Cantillon as an influence. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the Cantillon article, btw! I am actually translating it into Norwegian now. Excellent article. --Eisfbnore (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Place of death.

In the sidebar it states he died in London. In the article body, it says Scotland. Same Smith? Examinator (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The info in the sibebar has now been changed to match the sourced info in the article text.--JayJasper (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad writing

"These views ignore that Smith's visit to France (1764–66) changed radically his former views and that The Wealth of Nations is an inhomogeneous convolute of his former lectures and of what Quesnay taught him." Whoever wrote this needs to bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to show off how much time you've spent with the dictionary. A sentence which is more opaque than the subject it purports to explain is worse than useless, it's irresponsible. I note in passing that the opposite of 'homogenous' is not 'inhomogenous' but 'heterogenous', not that either word is appropriate here. Lexo (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tutoring and travels

This section must be ESL, and inserting the economics of France in it seems irrelevant.--John Bessa (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As a first step towards improving this section I have attempted, hopefully to a general consensus of satisfaction, to bring the style and structure up to 'snuff'. While I see that some of it should be either removed or expanded upon - this will have to be done later (if it is to be done by myself) as my bibliographical knowledge of Smith is lacking. I do believe this might have something to do with learning of Smith during my first semester of my first year of university. It will require some research on my part before I would be comfortable altering any of the factual data - unless of course someone else would like to take this on.

Let P = a person, x = the totality of information on this section:

 Begin Loop
   If there exists a P such that P(x') >= current Author P(x) | where x' and x =< x 
   then let P(x') = current Author
 End Loop

DmacG (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC) DmacG

Division of Labor

The writing surrounding this phrase is barely writing at all, and sounds, frankly, crazy.--John Bessa (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles Dickens reference

Don't know If it's worth mentioning in the article but Charles Dickens had character named after Adam Smith in his novel Hard Times. He is one of Gradgrinds younger children whose going through an inhumanly pragmatic education. The book is extremely critical of economics in general and there are a few nods to other economists and economic theory, anyway if people think its worth mentioning il stick it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.184.49 (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Smith's effect on Scotland

I came to this page wondering if Smith was Scottish; I would have assumed, perhaps because of ingrained anti-colonial bias, that he was English. But I recently saw a Scots-made TV history that described the Scottish iron industry of the early 20th Century as making itself more competitive by taking short-cuts is social and urban planning: they forwent big-city sanitation making cities that were uninhabitable. This sounded so familiar that I asked myself if Smith was a Scot (or perhaps an anti-Scot from within). This and other conditions, the show said, triggered the mass emigrations of Scots to the New World, in particular the region of Canada where I know live and am surrounded by a slight Scottish accent. Since Smith was never mentioned in the show (neither was free-market economy), it seems probable to me that Smith is more of a symbol for an economic system that attempts to cheapen good things to make the competitive (and hence more profitable), but in-so-doing, ultimately unbalances economic equilibrium crashing local economies, and, in the early 21st Century, never fails to trash culture and the environment.

I think the "cheapening" factor is worth looking at in the context of England and Scotland, as history shows that the products of these nations were neither cheap nor shoddy; they were cost-effective because of durability. This would have been achieved in spite of Smith, and his cohort, rather than because of him. GB only collapsed as a manufacturer in the wake of WWII probably because it was not perceived as a nation vulnerable to communism and therefore not qualified for reconstruction subsidies from the victorious US.--John Bessa (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Both smith and Hume were Scottish (as were a number of nominally "English" engineers in the 18th and 19th century), but I'm not sure what connection they really had to the composition and quality of Scottish goods. The general issue of capitalism leading to a cheapening of "crafted" goods can be challenged empirically, but the best theoretical argument on the subject is still Marx. As such I'm not sure how much of that issue ought to be covered in a biographical article on smith himself. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Error in "Early Life" section

In Early Life, there seem to be a few discrepancies. The first sentence is a run-on and contains a couple spliced words. I can't correct it because I have no clue what the original phrases were. There seems to be an anecdote here but it clashes with the factual nature of the section (born, went to school, etc).

" Though few events in Smith's early childhoodriverside Ca and klived herehouse at Strathendry on the banks of the Leven, [Smith] was stolen by a passing band of gypsies, and for a time could not be found. But presently a gentleman arrived who had met a gypsy woman a few miles down the road carrying a child that was crying piteously. Scouts were immediately dispatched in the direction indicated, and they came upon the woman in Leslie wood. As soon as she saw them she" threw her burden down and escaped, and the child was brought back to his mother. [Smith] would have made, I fear, a poor gypsy."[3]|group=N}}"

This is my first wiki post, so I am sort of unsure how this works. Please give me feedback if i have done this correctly or not.

--MongrelWarfare (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I think i fixed it. This happens sometimes when successive groups of people vandalize the same article. We catch and revert some of the vandalism but not all of it. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Residence

This section states that Smith's house on the Canongate survived until 1889 and references The Scotsman from the period. I've checked The Scotsman archive and aside from references to a commemorative plaque being placed can find nothing which confirms the allegation that the association between the remaining Panmure House and Adam Smith is myth.--Archher (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Heriot Watt Universitycontinue to report Panmure House as the historic residence of Smith contrary to what the Wiki entry reads. Has anyone sought confirmation on the references refered to above?.--Archher (talk) 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archher (talk • contribs)

Tutoring and Travels

My strong suspicion is that Smith was engaged to teach the Duke's son polish (manners) rather than Polish (the language of the Poles). I might be wrong, mind. 220.191.169.89 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to excellent discussion of Adam Smith from Jim Otteson - Russ Roberts on podcast EconTalk

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/06/otteson_on_adam.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.11.175 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Published Works / The Theory of Moral Sentiments

The third paragraph refers to "Puffendorf." That is a misspelling. The name is "Pufendorf," or "von Pufendorf." (See linked page.)

It seems the origin of the error is the quote from Hutcheson. (See footnote.)

(Auxilstitute (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC))

Inclusion in "Further reading" section of Iain McLeans' book on Adam Smith

 Done. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

Iain McLean, Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century (Edinburgh University Press, 2004)

70.51.48.171 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad scholarship

The shallowness and bias in this article is one of the reasons Wikipedia will probably never be more than a compendium of low-hanging-fruit trivia. It illustrates the degree to which commenters on Smith have (a) never actually read his WoN, or (b) never understood whatever bits they did read, or (c) didn't care what they'd read and wrote with ax in hand, grinding away.

As Chomsky said (Class Warfare (1995), pp. 19-23, 27-31): I didn't do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There's no research. Just read it. He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. It goes on and on. He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies. He was talking about England and India. He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India.

He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call "national interests." He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the "merchants and manufacturers," and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, "most peculiarly attended to," no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right.

This truism was, a century later, called class analysis, but you don't have to go to Marx to find it. It's very explicit in Adam Smith. It's so obvious that any ten-year-old can see it. So he didn't make a big point of it. He just mentioned it. But that's correct. If you read through his work, he's intelligent. He's a person who was from the Enlightenment. His driving motives were the assumption that people were guided by sympathy and feelings of solidarity and the need for control of their own work, much like other Enlightenment and early Romantic thinkers. He's part of that period, the Scottish Enlightenment.

The version of him that's given today is just ridiculous. But I didn't have to any research to find this out. All you have to do is read. If you're literate, you'll find it out.

I can state that my experience agrees with Chomsky's. I read WoN, but then after reading some of the conventional appraisals and "scholarship" I felt extremely confused. I wondered whether there might be some other Adam Smith who wrote a book with a similar title. The conventional views (ably represented in this Wiki article) were diametrically opposed to everything I read in WoN and I just couldn't imagine how the authors could possibly have made such egregious errors. Later, having read Chomsky's evaluation, I felt a great sense of relief: obviously Chomsky and I had read the same book! 72.70.17.22 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is Ricardo

Toward the end of the Wealth of Nations segment we find the following:

[Ricardo mistrusts landowners as earners of a monopoly income.]

Is this vandalism? Ileanadu (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not vandalism. Just misguided editing from someone undoubtedly acting in good faith. It has been removed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Religious views

I have deleted the references to Ronald Coase's opinions regarding Smith's religious views. Smith articulated his views clearly enough that the factual history of his education, his cultural exposure, and his own expressed views should be the basis for this section. It should not include the singular opinion of Coase speculating on Smith's convictions based on statements wholly separate from Smith's expressly stated views concerning religion and God. MarsBarsTru (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

well no. Wikipedia disallows original research based in primary sources and insists we report on what reliable secondary sources have to say. (Coase has a Nobel Prize in economics). Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, no yourself. Coase has a Nobel Prize in economics. His Nobel Prize in economics is not the equivalent of being a theological or historical scholar. Coase's comments did not reference Smith's expressed views on God and religion, but instead referenced observations Smith made about mankind in general. For instance, his quoting of Smith regarding superstition. As most organized religions are critical of superstition, a single sentence of Smith's implying a negative opinion of superstition hardly qualifies as the basis to make the case that Smith was anti-religious or atheist. Coase's opinion in this case is no more valid than anyone else's that one could find asserting one way or another that Smith believed in God or not. When the opinion is based on statements and phrases Smith made not directly related to his expressed opinions, when the opinion of Coase or anyone else attempts to portray Smith as having a particular point of view while completely ignoring Smith's expressed words on the subject, then that opinion should not be included as it is unfounded and hardly worthy of citation. MarsBarsTru (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Including Smith's own writings doesn't really fall afoul of OR in a biographical article. But I think the section as it is now is perfectly fine. Protonk (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The section seems fine to me. It's not so much speculation as an interpretation of what Smith wrote himself. Asteuartw (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It is becoming apparent that there is an attempt to push a secularist perspective in this section. Coase's opinion is not an expert opinion concerning Smith's religious views, is not in depth, and is completely unqualified. The inclusion of Coase's opinion does not enrich the article in any way, but simply puts Coase's unqualified opinion 'out there' hanging with no bearing on the topic. Furthermore, inclusion of Smith's friends, whether they be atheist, deist, or fundamentally religious also does not add or enhance this article in any way. What legitimate purpose is there for the inclusion of a single atheist friend being listed as Smith's friend? Smith had many friends and associates, the vast majority of whom were religious. Do we list them all and list what praises Smith had for them? It is obvious that combining Coase's opinion which contradicts Smith's own expressed views specifically and in depth explaining his religious thoughts along with the rather ridiculous mention of Hume being a friend - adding to Hume's history an unqualified label of "atheist" - makes it all too plain what is going on here. I suggest that the parties involved reconsider how much value they place on their own intellectual integrity, or admit that they are nihilists and have no interest in the "truth". MarsBarsTru (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear MarsBarsTru: I'm afraid that you are not acting according to consensus in removing the "secularist" interpretations of Smith's religious views. All the other editors who have expressed an opinion here have felt that the material deserves to be included in the article. And the view of Smith as having been relatively irreligious, and probably more irreligious than he claimed explicitly, is neither marginal nor irrelevant. For example, the little capsule biography of him in the first leaf of the Modern Library edition of Wealth of Nations mentions the controversy caused by his writings about the death of Hume, because they emphasized Hume's courage as well as his irreligiosity. - Eb.hoop (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Article misses Smith's main line of argument?

Before reading this article I was under the impression that I more or less knew Smith's main line of argument in WoN. However, it is nowhere to be found in this article. I thought it was that wealth is created by the division of labor, which in turn is the result of large free markets that are able to justify the fixed costs of specialization. The invisible hand maybe got more press, but the benefits he saw for free markets are on the production side, in the division of labor, which is the ultimate engine of growth. Some argue that the over-emphasis of later economists on the invisible hand is because general equilibrium came along and provided an elegant mathematical model to capture it. Whereas, models that capture the benefits of the division of labor came only much much later, and are still in development to this day. These models also suffer from the fact that they have no undergraduate counterpart, so they remain rather obscured from public view. I'll present my sources in the next post. Yaniv256 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, I agree, and there is some material in that regard in the article, but it is very horribly written.VolunteerMarek 04:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the source I am going to use to put this view into the article: Specialization and Division of Labor: A Survey by Xiaokai Yang. Yaniv256 (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Yet another source: The Successes and Failures of Professor Smith by George J. Stigler. Yaniv256 (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

LOCATION: ADAM SMITH RELATED STATUES

This is my first inquiry and I don't know much about how to suggest how someone with more knowledge can investigate a matter, so this is for someone else to read and do. At the section "Portraits, monuments, and banknotes" the text reads: "At the University of North Carolina at Charlotte...is 'Adam Smith's Spinning Top.' Another Smith sculpture is at Cleveland State University." But the caption under the picture reads "...Adam Smith's Spinning Top at Cleverland State University." This causes me to inquire: Are there two statues of the same name or is the location of one only either in Charlotte or in Cleveland? Someone needs to clarify and bring text and caption in harmony. I don't know how to do this, but I suggest someone can trace for correcting information. The above instructions instructs "...sign your posts by typing four tildes..." I don't know what a tilde is. This is all new to me at my age 76. I read your Wikipedia article "Tilde" which seems to indicate that such a mark might be those on the keyboard above the numbers so I attempt to sign by using the following:

                &^#*

P.S. I hope to read this article again in the future and find that someone has corrected it or at least expanded or clarified text and caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrnpasture (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adam Smith/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 06:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Jamesx12345, thank you for bringing this article to the GA review process. Unfortunately, I have decided to fail the nomination for the reasons that I list below. I noticed that you had not edited the article recently, so I suggest that you attempt the revise the article as much as you can before you re-nominate it for GA status.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article relies on too many quotations without explaining their significance. See WP:QUOTEFARM for further advice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Unresolved "citation needed" tag in the section on The Wealth of Nations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think the "Criticism and Dissent" section should be further developed. Currently it consists mostly of one long quotation.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please let me know if you have any questions. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I am afraid I am guilty of a fly-by nomination, as I came across this article thinking it was quite good and worthy of a nomination, having been improved a lot since it was last reviewed. There are some useful pointers here to be acted on in the future. Regards, Jamesx12345 (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

I'm not sure how to change anything, so I'll just point it out in case someone else can do something with it: "[...] led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.", which is written under the heading of The theory of moral sentiment and indeed allocated to it in the references section, is actually written in The wealth of nations, Chapter II (OF RESTRAINTS UPON IMPORTATION FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES OF SUCH GOODS AS CAN BE PRODUCED AT HOME). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.156.76 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

Adam Smith was not born june 5th but june 16th— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arherymask 1999 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and dissent

The section titled "Criticism and dissent" currently includes neither - just a quote by Noam Chomsky which doesn't disagree with anything Smith wrote, but instead criticizes modern misinterpretations of Smith's ideas. (The quote is relevant to the article and should likely be kept, but the section should be re-titled, or expanded to include actual criticisms of Adam Smith's ideas as well.) 66.65.189.35 (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Greatest Scot"

Wow, I'm honestly surprised that this is something anyone wanted to discuss. I propose that we remove the first paragraph reference to the fact that Adam Smith was named one of the "Greatest Scots" by a television show three years ago. In the grand scope of what is important to say about Adam Smith, I'd suggest that his winning this award is probably near the bottom of the list. johnpseudo 10:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me; although it should definitely be mentioned (somewhere) in the body of the article. bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. This is truly unimportant trivia that has no place in the article. johnpseudo 10:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wealth of Nations

I think the discussion in this section as to the *intent* of Smith's work is completely mistaken.

Smith never wrote of an intent. He only *described* the ways in which an economy functions.

It may be that from that description one can see there are ways to increase the rate at which wealth is created - but Smith never, NEVER advocated. He ONLY described.

The supposed debate between different types of economist to decided that which Smith advocated is completely incorrect - it is really, if anything, a debate about the understanding of what Smith wrote and so the conclusions about which ways the rate of wealth creation can be increased. None of this has *anything* do with Smith's views.

178.83.234.71 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Religious Views

In the Theory of Moral Sentiments Adam Smith writes "The administration of the great system of the universe ... the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension: the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country.... But though we are ... endowed with a very strong desire of those ends, it has been entrusted to the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason to find out the proper means of bringing them about. Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them" The references to God, being endowed with desire, and the intent of a great Director, all seem to point to a belief by the writer of God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.81.214 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this really belong in the first paragraph

Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it is said, used to carry a copy of the book in her handbag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam Smith and the University of Edinburgh

This page claims that Adam Smith delivered a successful series of public lectures at the University of Edinburgh. This is not true. Smith was not affiliated with Edinburgh University. He gave a series of pubic lectures on English literature in Edinburgh - not the university - from 1748 to 1750. Life of Adam Smith (John Rae) states that Smith gave pubic lectures at Edinburgh; it doesn't claim that they were given at Edinburgh University. After reviewing the history of the page, I found that this misleading fact was added by an IP on 25 December 2011.[1] It is unfortunate that such a misleading information has survived on the page for nearly three and a half years. Zenqueue (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

robcarter.vn@gmail.com Followed all Adam Smiths friends and acquaintances and Apart from Benjamin Franklin who tried marriage not so well they all apper to hve litytle or no interest in opposite sex, were they perhaps all GBLT when that was an unspekable matter?--101.99.10.134 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090517104046/http://www.adamsmith.org:80/adam-smith/ to http://www.adamsmith.org/adam-smith/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Khalil's comment on this article

Dr. Khalil has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

First addition:

After the text on the Theory of Moral Sentiments, immediately after the text: "Ekelund and Hebert offer a differing view, observing that self-interest is present in both works and that "in the former, sympathy is the moral faculty that holds self-interest in check, whereas in the latter, competition is the economic faculty that restrains self-interest."[78]."

I would add the following text: The thesis that the two books of Smith are inconsistent was the dominant view prior to 1976. This was strongly disputed in the famous “Introduction” written by the editors, D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie, to the variorum Glasgow edition of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, published by Oxford University Press in 1976. These editors argued strongly that, after all, sympathy is not about motivation, in particular beneficence (what is called today "altruism"). For these editors, there is no relation between sympathy and beneficence. Therefore, these editors maintained, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" could not be inconsistent with Smith’s other book, "The Wealth of Nations," which stresses the other motive, self-interest. These editors set the stage for the post-1976 scholarship that regards sympathy as mainly the basis of "approbation" or "judgment": whether the pitch of the examined emotion, irrespective of its nature or motive, is proportional to the stimulus.

A few scholars, such as Elias Khalil [1990], show how sympathy plays the two functions in Smith's system: i) sympathy is about motivation as the pre-1976 scholarship has emphasized. But it is not only the motivation to advance the wellbeing of others (Smith's "virtue of beneficence"), it is also about the motivation to advance the wellbeing of the self (Smith's "self-love" and "virtue of prudence"); ii) sympathy is, in addition, about the criterion of approbation, i.e., how to judge whether one is exercising what Smith calls "self-command" in the sense of lowering the pitch of the emotions in proportion to the stimulus. Khalil [2010, 2011, 2015] goes even further and proposes the controversial view that both functions of sympathy elucidate the micro link between the emotions and reason or what is called today “rational choice.”

Khalil, Elias L. “Beyond Self-Interest and Altruism: A Reconstruction of Adam Smith's Theory of Human Conduct.” Economics and Philosophy, October 1990, 6:2, pp. 255-273.

________. “Adam Smith's Concept of Self-Command as a Solution to Dynamic Inconsistency and the Commitment Problem.” Economic Inquiry, January 2010, 48:1, pp. 177-191.

________. “The Mirror Neuron Paradox: How Far is Understanding from Mimicking?” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, January 2011, 77:1, pp. 86-96.

________. “The Fellow-Feeling Paradox: Hume, Smith and the Nature of Sympathy.” Philosophy, October 2015, 90:4, pp. 653-678.

--- Second addition, at the start of the section titled "The Wealth of Nations", there is a long quote, starting with "As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can.

At the end of the quote I suggest noting the following:

This is the most celebrated reference to f Smith’s “invisible hand” in relation to the welfare benefit of free markets. But, according to Khalil [2000], this quote is actually about the failure of markets to attain efficient allocation of resources and, hence, maximize welfare. Smith in this quote tries to allay the fears of the citizens of each country: if free movement of capital is allowed, the national capital of each respective country would move to foreign lands in the pursuit of higher rates of profits. This would lower the welfare of the national economy, i.e., causing the respective country to become poorer. In response, Smith is noting that that markets are not, luckily, so efficient. Even if free movement of capital is allowed, capital does not move so elastically in response to differences in rates of returns for a simple reason: fear and insecurity of foreign markets. Investors prefer, even when foreign returns are higher, domestic markets not out of concern of the general interest, but out of concern of self-interest. Without their knowledge, the fear of foreign markets leads to the prosperity of their own national market. Thus, the invisible hand works because markets are inefficient, riddled with fear and insecurity. Maybe a better illustration of the invisible hand is the often quoted statement about supposed benevolence of the “the butcher, the brewer, or the baker”: Those who regard that statement as Smith's central message also quote frequently Smith's dictum [delete this sentence for the transition]

Khalil, Elias L. “Making Sense of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand: Beyond Pareto Optimality and Unintended Consequences.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, March 2000a, 22:1, pp. 49-63.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Khalil has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Khalil, Elias, 2007. "The Mirror-Neuron Paradox: How Far is Sympathy from Compassion, Indulgence, and Adulation?," MPRA Paper 3509, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Scottish or British

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith&diff=737474852&oldid=737143521 _ (After the acts of union 1707, Scottish was no longer a nationality. Yes, Adam was Scottish, but that wasn't his nationality (citizenship))

Scottish to British, change was three days ago. I looked back and he has been Scottish in the infobox for at the least over a year, so I have replaced Scottish and opened a chat here for discussion about it Govindaharihari (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Act of Union... not a nationality .. citizenship" argument is an old, spurious one. It is just one of the factors that needs to be considered with UK Nationals, which is particular to the article subject and not a one-size-fits-all matter. See here for generally agreed guidelines. I'm not sure where Smith falls into this, but it's usually the case that you don't change nationality without good reason, and "Act of Union... not a nationality .. citizenship" is an attempt to enforce uniformity, which is strongly discouraged. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Proper Polish

I hesitate to edit this without consulting ref 29, but surely this should read "the Polish language"? "proper Polish" is frankly odd. One's admiration for Smith can only increase in learning that he mastered Polish well enough to teach it. LaFolleCycliste 05:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFolleCycliste (talk • contribs)

Dr. Meacci's comment on this article

Dr. Meacci has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The entry is properly presented. The section concerning the Wealth of Nations, however, deserves some remarks.

For instance, this section should be focused not so much on the invisible hand (which, in Smith’s system of thought, is an analytical follow-up to the theory of value and distribution (Book I) as well as to the theory of capital and growth (Book II). By contrast, I would focus on the theory of value (intended by Smith as labour embodied and, especially with regard to the capitalist state, by labour commanded) as an introduction not only to the theory of distribution but also to the theory of capital, productive labour, accumulation, profit and (increasing) wages (to be followed by the entry’s final –and appropriate- discussion of the role of government discussed by Smith in his Book IV). In this sense Smith’s “labour theory of value” should be more properly discussed (before getting to the unnecessary connection with Marx’s) in the light not only of Ricardo’s criticisms but also of Smith’s own connection between the principle of labour commanded and the process of capital accumulation. The fact is that Book II should be viewed as the core of the Wealth with the result that some of its most important passages would deserve to be quoted in the current entry (possibly in lieu of those actually existing in it). In this sense, I would also drop any (misleading) discussion of the link between the role of the “invisible hand” in Smith’s system of thought and the neoclassical (and current) misuse of this concept. P.S.1. In my view, the citations list should be somewhat shortened and some of the citations somewhat replaced.

P.S.2. On Smith’s “law of increasing wages”, see Meacci F., “The competition-of-capitals doctrine and the wage-profit relationship”, in Neri Salvadori ed., Economic Growth and Distribution: On the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edward Elgar, 2006, pp.58-74, and “On Adam Smith’s Ambiguities on Value and Wealth”, in History of Political Economy, 2012, Vol. 44:4, pp. 663-689.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Meacci has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Meacci, Ferdinando, 2011. "From bounties on exportation to the natural and market price of labour: Smith versus Ricardo," MPRA Paper 31153, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Region: Western philosophy

Tell me if I'm wrong but, shouldn't "Western philosophy" be a type of "Religion" category instead of "Region"?

Xnerdz (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No. If you look at the documentation at Template:Infobox_philosopher you see that the "region should be selected from Category:Philosophy by region" of which Western philosophy is one of the entries. meamemg (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030185820/http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/scotland/ScotlandP209-50Pounds-1981-donatedowl_f.jpg to http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/scotland/ScotlandP209-50Pounds-1981-donatedowl_f.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003071439/http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/banknotes_current_clydesdale_bank.php to http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/banknotes_current_clydesdale_bank.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adamsmith.org/adam-smith/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611110312/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=37&item=biography to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=37&item=biography
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128233435/http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=343 to http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=343
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122103606/http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/the-restoration-of-panmure-house to http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/the-restoration-of-panmure-house

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Views on the working classes

There's an interesting excerpt in an article by Michael Perelman (1989) [2]:

Despite Smith’s low regard for independent farmers and farm workers, he held them in significantly higher esteem than ordinary workers. He exclaimed, “How much the lower ranks of the people in the country are really superior to those in the town, is well known to every man whom either business or curiosity has led to converse with both” (Smith 1776, I.x.c.24, p. 144; see also Smith 1978, 539). Smith was especially belligerent toward the traditional working class cultural practices such as those that were embodied in what was called the moral economy (see Thompson 1971).

Perhaps someone wants to work it into the article? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Criticism and dissent" section is misplaced and also confusing

Most articles like this have a criticism section, but here it's stuffed incongruously into the section about his published works as a subsection (???).

It's also worded confusingly with regards to what are his own views and what are his critics' views. For example,

Adam Smith explains the downsides of dividing the labor and the submission of labor to business owners in the Wealth of Nations. He explains that since the masters (business owners) are fewer in numbers, it becomes much easier for them to collaborate in order to serve common interests among them, such as keeping the wages of workers low, while it is much more difficult for the labor to coordinate in order to protect their own interests. Therefore, business owners have a bigger advantage over the working class. Nevertheless, according to Adam Smith, people rarely hear about the coordination and collaboration that happens between business owners as it happens informally. Adam Smith also argues that dividing the labor leads to a nation of "helots"; meaning freedom would not exist. He mentions that in order to make the capitalist (owner) rich, the labor must be made poor and ignorant; repeating a few tasks over and over again, which undermines humans' mental capabilities. The dexterity of performing one task comes at the expense of intellectual, social and martial virtues but in every “civilized and improved” society, this is where the majority of people should fall, as per Adam Smith. He also writes that people should be educated but prudently (carefully) and homeopathically (slowly).

This is cited with a pdf from a marxist website. I'm guessing this is based on that Marxist source's interpretation of what Adam Smith said, but in a case like that there needs to be better attribution than "Adam Smith explains".Nlburgin (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I just dove deeper down the rabbit hole, and this (at least in some parts) isn't even correct according to the source it cites. That source attributed the part about "Helots" to a quote from "A. Ferguson, the master of Adam Smith". I think this paragraph definitely needs to be, if not removed altogether, than rephrased into speaking in terms of what A Critique of Political Economy says about Smith's theories. In the process, care should be taken to make sure it's accurate to what that secondary source is saying in the first place, which it isn't currently.Nlburgin (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and took action. I don't expect moving the section somewhere more appropriate to be controversial, so I did that. I also took the liberty of removing the paragraph listed above, leaving only the other one. Someone else can try to salvage it if they want, but right now it really shouldn't be in the article.Nlburgin (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Labor theory of value

I have twice reverted the addition of the following text, which reversion I will here try to explain:

The validation of the market exchange in a Smithian view must conation and hold constant value with the consumer. If a consumer no longer values a good or service than all the labor that was put into the means of production of this item disappears. This is seen when new products make older products obsolete in the economy. One example of this is how Apple made MP3 players obsolete. Once Apple came out with their revolutionary technology the previous MP3 player technology was seen an inferior and lost it value to all consumers in the market. No matter how much money was used in the production and technology cost involved in creating this deceive, the MP3 player was seen as worthless to consumers and thus the MP3 player lost all value. This is furthermore supported in Collins peer reviewed article Expanding the Theory of Labor Value stating that, “If a new technology allowed it to be made in a simpler fashion, its value would reflect the labor required by the new production process, even if its makers used the old methods.” (Collins 106) This same premise works in the same way in how new technologies and machines have taken the human jobs away from laborers. New machinery and technology are developed to make production as cheap as possible in order for the company to maximize profit. Once new machinery is developed and takes the place of a physical human job the human, in the same way as the MP3 player, physical human labor losses all value.

Notes

I invite Johnvarcados to discuss these matters here prior to reintroducing this text. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

North British

I have reverted this edit from last month. The editor claims that the source verifies that "he identified as North British, or North Briton - not Scottish which implies an alliance to Scottish successionism that he did not have." I dispute this twice over;

• Firstly, the source says "He was a North Briton, a Scot who cared enough for his country". So I see no reason to decide that this means he identified as a North Briton, and not a Scot. And in fact it shows that the author identifies him as both.
• Secondly, describing him as Scottish implies absolutely nothing about his alliance to "Scottish successionism"

The source used is here; Williams, Gwydion M. (2000). Adam Smith, Wealth Without Nations. London: Athol Books. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-85034-084-6.

So I have reverted this change as unsupported and unnecessary. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I added the reference to North Britain, but I did not expect it would be used to change his overall description, especially as "North Briton" is a synonym for "Scot". I agree with the reversion, but not the removal of the note, which I will restore. GPinkerton (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem with this. I've expanded slightly what the note says to more fully reflect what the source says. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Offerman5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaredbawner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Economic

The first book on economic written by adam Smith 27.34.104.170 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sanborn-CSU.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)