Talk:Adam Smith
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adam Smith Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Edit review
I doubt that I'm wrong but just to be safe what does everyone think of this diff (which I've reverted as WP:RPC) describing Smith as "French"? I don't know much about Smith, but honorary citizenship doesn't count right? Cheers, it's lio! | talk | work 15:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- @HKLionel The lead should be focused on what makes the subject notable and how the reader and sources might usually identitify them. While honorary citizenship is of note, and should definitely be covered elsewhere in the article, it's not what makes Smith notable, or how most sources would identify him. (fr.wikipedia.org and French sources may see it differently.)
- Indeed, dropping "French" it into the lead without explanation is more likely to confuse and mislead readers. So no, doesn't belong there. Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, just playing it safe. G'day, it's lio! | talk | work 16:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Suggestions for improvements
Taking note from Karl Marx, I would propose that we add a section on "Influences" before covering "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "Wealth of Nations". In the current state of the article, the influence of Smith's contemporaries of the Scottish Enlightenment (esp. Hume), but also other early economists like Quesnay or Petty come very short.
In the Legacy section, many subsections seem to be mostly made up of collections of statements about Smith from various thinkers. Reorganising this and adding more context should add quite a lot of value. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Go ahead and be WP:BOLD and make the edits. If someone doesn't like them, we can go from there discussing/improving on them. meamemg (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Philosopher
To change a mans title posthumously in an effort to legitamize an entire academic department like Economics, which uses premises like perfect competition, rational agents - Smith would never have approved. He was a moral philospher - a prodigy and genius. His insights were grounded in reality, not just castles in the sky. If you started to talk to smith about perfect competition, he'd stop listening to you. His security would have dragged you outside the building for wasting his time. It's theft of identity -- to steal his life after death. The man was a philosopher, stop pretending he was one of you. He wasnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.236.163.167 (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? The article merely reflects how he is described by sources. If you have a problem with that description, take it up with them. Wikipedia isn't altered to reflect the opinions of anonymous people on the internet. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)