Talk:American Monetary Institute

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Doesn't sound like an "advertisement" at all to me. It's short, formal, and to the point and factual. I've seen advertisement-link pages on wikipedia (see pages on 'professional gamblers' pages linked to from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kaplan#Poker for example) but this is not one of them.--Harel 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible edit

I can see that there's a point to editing the article so it reviews Zaralenga's work in such a way that it posits alternatives, and gives it a more neutral point of view. However, it would be mostly my own views, and that could be problematic in itself. I wouldn't want stuff to get edited out on that basis. What's the situation ? JohnAugust (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it would be mostly my own views, and that could be problematic" - that's definitely problematic on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. Thanks for asking! --Chriswaterguy talk 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the edits, and also cited some references. I feel I overstated the issue earlier. Some people make an ambit claim which understates matters, I tend to make one which overstates matters for the sake of clarity and boldness. The summary was my own words, but it was nevertheless based on other's assertions and maintained a NPOV. I maintain it represents a worthwhile edit.JohnAugust (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A concern

Why put so much emphasis on Zarlenga's ideas about historical currencies, and promote WP:FRINGE ideas in wikipedia's voice? bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]