Talk:Angus Maddison

Untitled
I've added the basics for this author, who is cited in many reference sections of Wikipedia pages. I've linked a few - can someone use a 'software robot' to add the rest? --GwydionM 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To Fowler&fowler
Would you two please explain what was the reason for your last change? It seemed perfectly good to me.--GwydionM (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maddison's work is highly controversial and his book The World Economy: Historical Statistics has been criticized in many circles. Here are excerpts (in compressed format) from reviews by various scholars, beginning with one by Brian Haig (Australian National University); the last sentence of which is a withering assessment of Maddison's Australian statistics:

This article needs balance more than anything else. A Wikipedia article or list should not be based on one idiosyncratic work. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are excerpts of the review of Maddison's earlier book: Caldwell, John C. (Sept. 2002). "Reviewed Work(s): The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective by Angus Maddison", Population and Development Review, Vol. 28, No. 3., pp. 559-561.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And excerpts from a review by W. W. Rostow of a still earlier work by Maddison: "Reviewed Work(s): Phases of Capitalist Development. by Angus Maddison," The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 45, No. 4. (Dec., 1985), pp. 1026-1028.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, excerpts from W. J. MacPherson's review: "Reviewed Work(s): Class Structure and Economic Growth. India and Pakistan since the Moghuls by Angus Maddison." The Economic Journal, Vol. 82, No. 328. (Dec., 1972), pp. 1470-1472.

And, here is Judith Brown (Beit Professor of Commonwealth History, University of Oxford) on Maddison: "'But over one basic trend there is major academic controversy and little likelihood of resolution until much more research has been done. One scholar (Maddison) hazarded successively estimates of a 3 per cent increase, a 16.6 per cent increase, and a 28.9 per cent increase in crop output between 1893 and 1946; and this was a period when population increased by 46 per cent.  If this was true Indian's food resources would have been cut dramatically.  In the absence of evidence of such a drastic cut perhaps a more realistic estimate is that in the early twentieth century at least, when the population explosion really began, agriculture output rose roughly in line with population.'" I think words like "important" etc. should be removed. It is not clear that his work is considered "important;" it certainly is considered controversial. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Graph
I assume that the graph is meant to say (and of course needs repair to correct it) "GDP" not "GPD" as it currently states? Is that correct? Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

State funding for science
I've removed this entire section. The original edit was anonymous. Then a source was added, but it was the Daily Telegraph's opinion based on their interpretation of Maddison's data.

If Maddison really did say this, a direct quote should be found. --GwydionM (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 AD to 2003 AD Historical Trends in global distribution of GDP China India Western Europe USA Middle East.png

Promotional language in the lead section
I have removed (just as another editor has removed) the descriptor "world-leading" from the lead. This type of language is not encyclopedia writing; it is vague and promotional). We don't describe even figures like Albert Einstein in this way. The fact that the subject's work was pioneering or influential can be conveyed in other ways. Neutralitytalk 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it is factually true that he was famous. If you are offended by the facts he documented, that is your problem.


 * Famous people can be wrong, but are still famous even if it is underserved. Not true here, in my view, but this is not about opinions.--GwydionM (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously he was well-known and influential, but we convey notability in more direct and informational ways that vague descriptors like "world-leading." See WP:PEACOCK: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as 'peacock terms' by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." I note that three separate editors&mdash;,, and myself&mdash;have removed "world-leading" from the lead, so consensus is clearly not in favor of this content. Neutralitytalk 17:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not being abused in this case. It has been like that since 2018, and it was not me who said it.  --GwydionM (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that it has been in the article for a long time is irrelevant. It is still an unnecessary peacock term as pointed out above, and it is not supported by the source. Please stop edit warring to include a term that is not needed and against our guidelines. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You have failed to check. But to avoid time-wasting, I will use a milder term.--GwydionM (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not 'peacock' to say he was distinguished
A quick google using distinguished "Angus Maddison" revealed all sorts of sources. Even if you think him mistaken, it is a documented fact that majority opinion admires him.

"This lecture that the Development Centre hosts now for the fifth time has become a tradition. It is not only a tribute to the brilliant Professor Angus Maddison, it is also a great opportunity to discuss the defining challenges of our era. These provide food for thought and also have the potential to identify and develop better policies for better lives." 

"Those who study macroeconomics and economic growth and who use long-term data have anxiously awaited the arrival of The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. This book, which provides data on GDP and population growth for the past millennium, enables quantification of long-term changes, and is therefore of exceptional interest; for research, it is a must. "Elise S. Brezis, "Review of Angus Maddison The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective" Economic History Services, Nov 26, 2001."

"OECD's Gurría mourns death of economist Angus Maddison... "“The OECD family is very sad to lose one of its most brilliant members,” Mr. Gurría said. “Prof. Maddison served in this house during many years and left us some extraordinary works.”

"ANGUS MADDISON, who died in 2010, was among the most influential of economic historians; his book on the world economy over the past 2,000 years is a classic."

"Angus Maddison, emeritus professor of economics at the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands, taught and inspired hundreds of students how to look more broadly at the phenomena of economic growth and development and to go beyond the confines of core textbooks."

--GwydionM (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

la croissance économique
hello 102.223.130.232 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)