Talk:Malinvestment

John Stuart Mill vs. John Mills

Apparently there existed a John Mills at the same time. I have removed the following block from the 'Economic philosophy' section:

Panics and Capital

Mill once made a statement on panics and capital, saying

Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works.

— John Mills, Article read before the Manchester Statistical Society, December 11, 1867, on Credit Cycles and the Origin of Commercial Panics

...everything seems to hint that the quote belongs to this John Mills guy. Can't find it in the collected works of J.S.Mill, nor in other places. The quoted book (see online version) mentions both names independently as well.

If somebody finds, that this is wrong, please correct here and in John Stuart Mills. Pestergaines (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT vs WP:NOTCENSORED

BigK Hex keeps removing this: ABCT and the GFC: Confessions of a Mainstream Economist and replacing it with one sentence references to 40 year old stuff from the now dead Milton Friedman, who himself is rarely mentioned in mainstream circles now, compared to, for example, Keynes. Monetarism could easily be considered 'heterodox' now, but strangely BigK keeps putting this marginal stuff in the article and deleting 'real' research from the Austrian School relating to the term 'malinvestment'. I think I know what he's clumsily trying to do - keep a 'mainstream' perspective per WP:UNDUE. However, this is dangerously close to breaching WP:NOTCENSORED for the following reasons. First, the reference to MF doesn't even include an explicit reference to the term 'malinvestment' or an analysis of the concept. Second, this is an article about a term only used in the heterodox context. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to describe it in the context of the 'heterodox' Austrian School, but it is annoying and inappropriate to repeatedly inject mainstream reasearch papers and delete relevant recent research from the School itself on this topic. Third, it is not appropriate to use WP:UNDUE in the context of a term only used in a heterodox context. To use an analogy, the article on gay marriage doesn't need a huge section on the Catholic Church's condemnation of anal sex and the removal of any reference to the recent case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger due to the fact that the majority of Californians condemned homosexual marriage by voting for Proposition 8 and outlawing gay marriage. The outlawing of gay marriage is clearly and without question a 'majority' mainstream position in California. But an article on gay marriage itself on WP can only be complete with reference to relevant research in the 'heterodox' or 'minority' area of the homosexual minority. It's exactly the same here. It's as though a member of the 'Moral Majority' wants to dominate a page on gay marriage by referencing only Proposition 8 and deleting any mention of Perry v. Schwarzenegger to maintain a 'mainstream' perspective and avoid WP:UNDUE. But the word itself is only used in the heterodox context. - Jessica'sGems (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jessica, you have responded much better than I did.Pestergaines (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you ranting about my edits. But, as you are the editor supporting inclusion of the viewpoint that I have challenged as wholly non-notable, you actually may want to spend text on showing the notability of the view that you wish to write about. Pretty clearly, WP:NPOV does not allow us to write about any opinion that can be found. We write about viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence." I leave it to you to show the prominence of the view you are supporting. Show evidence here that Tempelman's viewpoint has significant prominence. BigK HeX (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought personal attacks - calling my detailed, considered response 'rantings' - were against WP policy. Oh well... I also thought a detailed response was necessary given your immediate, contemptuous dismissal of both my considered, reasonable edits and Pestergaines' considered, reasonable edits. Oh well... I also thought someone with a clear anti-AS POV and possible WP:COI issues against AS would be disciplined by other admins. Oh well... The simple objective reality is that the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics is a reliable source for the purposes of defining or explaining an Austrian term. It's been cited in the Austrian School article. This has already been determined elsewhere on WP. Fortunately. An article from the QJAE is notable, at least for Austrian topics. Simple. - Jessica'sGems (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit violates policy in no less than three ways.

1. You have NOT proved it is notable. It has ZERO citations, and WP:UNDUE is quite clear that "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
2. Your source is the QJAE, which receives no significant attention outside of the Austrian School POV. Per WP:RS, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. So, you do NOT even have a reliable source for attacking a mainstream study.
3. Also, even if your minority viewpoint about Tempelman could be kept, your use of it still violates WP:NPOV, specifically in that your usage gives the impression that it is in parity with the prominence of Milton Friedman's study with Friedman's scores of citations. Specifically you violate WP:NPOV directive which tells us: "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity."

If, for some reason, you think your text does not need to meet WP:NPOV standards, please be aware that WP:NPOV clearly explains that

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

My biggest issue is that you have repeatedly failed to prove prominence, as required by the WP:NPOV] policy, so I am removing your text based on article with ZERO citations. BigK HeX (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Less stubby

As a formal request for this article to be expanded had been made by WP admins, I have done so. The 'stub' tag can now be deleted, or further refs found to further fill out the explanation from other works. If anyone wishes to add further info - or delete the stub tag - please do so. Jessica'sGems (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)