Talk:Mariana Mazzucato

Birth place missed?
The birth place, as a rule of biography. has to be mentioned. The family name is common in Venetia.--79.31.202.45 (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Tipical surname in Padua, acutally. http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turismo-viaggi-e-tradizioni-italia?cognome=mazzucato&x=0&y=0#.UqbxDuJWLl8 --147.162.48.1 (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Since Mazzucato is listed among Italian economists, somebody should take care writing the article in Italian Wikipedia.--2.235.7.199 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mariana Mazzucato. 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/20150420105134/http://marianamazzucato.com/about-me/cv-2/ to http://marianamazzucato.com/about-me/cv-2/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Mention the TED talk?
She gave a TED talk in 2013: https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_investor_risk_taker_innovator?language=en

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Tal Galili (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Critiques?
This economist is suddenly widely known and has appeared in all the usual corporate outlets: New York Times, Wired, etc. It's hard to understand why she is immediately popular but it might be that this well vetted academic is least offensive to powerful people - especially during an American election cycle thus her recent appearances in multiple outlets.

Consider that one of her major premise(s) seems to be an amplification of an overly simplified understanding (delusion?) of "state" and "private" mechanisms or in most people's minds "entities". Is discrediting a myth with a so-called more moderate approach (what is it?) something that's going to sell books to wide audiences? Perhaps. What should we expect from someone who is popularized by the media?

I have read some of her output and so far. I see bullshit that doesn't offend the status quo. Unfortunately this can't be easily substantiated here - bullshit is simply an useless opinion. But is her Ted talk geared for an audience of people who are barely surviving paycheck to paycheck? Millions of them? Are millions of people satisfied with the status quo? Obviously her Ted speech isn't intended for people who largely no longer matter in so far that they must be convinced that they do. Moreover these "poor" people certainly consider the status quo to be problematic. What do poor people have to do with her Ted speech? Nothing and that's my point about why we should question a celebrity economist who has been foisted into the public conscience. If you're comfortable with Wired, The New York Times, et al forming your opinions with supposedly sensible ideas then her Ted speech and the accolades in major media are probably "for you" and no other consideration is needed.

If someone is keen on adding some analysis to her "economics" then that addition should be most appropriate to this Wikipedia bio. Celebrity is fine but up for debate is what she is saying or writing - allegedly about economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.172.35 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I was also missing some critical reviews of her thoughts. Instead there is a sentence in the article that claims critique on her thoughts would generally be "right wing". Critizising a neoliberal approach is not necessarily right wing. Are critical reviews of her work blocked in this article? 2003:6:230A:7974:4E20:32F2:E90E:12E3 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Are critical reviews of her work blocked in this article?" She's a WEF acolyte, and wikipedia is dominated by the far-left. Yes.  Wikipedia has succumbed to credentialism - if she advocated for WEF-controlled water rationing to 'save the planet', only praise would be permitted. (To note, I've had to substitute a few words in my comment because the FILTER on this very page censored this comment.  Amazing.)
 * Doesn't the reception section already include criticism of her work? Going from that to claims that Wikipedia is being controlled is an absurd leap to make. And for the record, no I don't think critiquing her work is inherently right-wing, that's ridiculous. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Selected publications
, as Wikipedia is not a CV, we don't list all or nearly all publications of scientists. They are typically not relevant to our readers, who could go to Google Scholar for an indiscrimate collection of papers / policy briefs. We try to pick out the most impactful ones. I selected the most-cited ones, but happy to discuss a different criterion.

If somebody reverts your edit, the correct thing is to discuss it on the talk page (here) and reach a consensus on what the article should say. You should not re-add it without discussion. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with FemkeMilene: the list of publications should not be exhaustive, but should represent "selected publications". I like FemkeMilene's criterion. If RyanPatrickFarrell chooses not to engage in this discussion, I will take the initiative to restore the prior smaller list. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing
The recent edits had a few useful bits, so I'm not going to revert them wholesale (might still be the best solution here), but there are significant problems:
 * The addition of unsourced statements (upcoming book, including that in the lede feels like advertising). Now removed
 * Stating that reports are influental by citing the report itself (!)
 * Phrases like: "Highly succesfull book", cited to a book review published just after the book came out (you can't know it's a success yet)
 * Loads of smaller advisory positions added, which are more suitable to a CV than an ecyclopedic article (like the Camden Council Renewal Commission).
 * Too many awards. The smaller ones are just puffery in my opinion. A think tank without a English Wikipedia article giving her an award.. Femke (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Some fair points here, but I think most of the updates should be kept since the page about this economist was quite out of date. The same is true for a few other economists to be honest. Before I look at other pages I will address the sourcing issues noted here. Perhaps the language was also a bit positively biased but I was using material from the author or reviewers as the basis for writing. Will also try to make tone more neutral. Thank you! Causalinfer (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the article and agree the tone was too influenced by material from Mazzucato's own website and favourable pieces in the media. How does it look now?
 * I think I have addressed the points raised and taken a more neutral point of view. I have also added critiques of her Mission Economy book, which were pretty numerous. Diane Coyle makes valid points about the authors blindness to government failure and strange (for an economist) oversight on the issue of incentives. There are critiques of her earlier books also, but these were mostly poorly argued and from a fairly partisan set of "usual suspects" (e.g. Adam Smith Institute) so I haven't added them in. Of course, there are also alternative and valid arguments to her academic work (e.g. on finance and innovation) but currently haven't added these in. Causalinfer (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better. We may be halfway there. Thanks for cleaning the article up! I would still like to know if you have a WP:COI with the subject. A few further examples:
 * The last paragraph of the lede does not come over as neutral yet: one of the fifty most creative people by Fast Company is again quite an empty statement. She has earned more prestigious awards.
 * 'Highly viewed' TED talks is linked to the TED talk itself. Is there is a secondary source? I don't know what is highly viewed for a TED talk.
 * No need to add qualifiers like influential if you already explain how it was influential . Same with 'very active' and 'numerous'. (resolved) MOS:FLOWERY explains why we should be careful using these words
 * Upon a quick look, I find quite a few examples of statements not supported by the following citation. If secondary sources don't talk about all her minor advisory roles, we shouldn't either. It's typically not appropriate to cite her CV, as her CV will give WP:UNDUE weight to smaller roles. I've tagged them in the article.
 * I'm not too concerned about the reception section. I think it was overly negative before, and it was somewhere on my to-do list to clean this up.
 * And a few comments unrelated to neutrality
 * We try to avoid the word current in articles, as it will date quickly. Femke (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! I address points individually:
 * No, I don't see any COI issues with the edits I've made.
 * Agree that the Fast Company and Wired "awards" are not really very relevant (think they were on the page prior to my edits). Cut in latest edit.
 * Those talks have 2.4million and 1 million views on the Ted website and ~150,000 and ~200,000 on Youtube so I think it's probably fair to say highly viewed
 * I think I've addressed most of this in last edits but will check over again. Perhaps a few influential etc. still could be cut.
 * I've tried to improve this in latest edit. There are still some honorary degrees with just CV as citation, but I will take a look at better ones.
 * Thanks!!! Causalinfer (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I got round to locating references better than Mazzucato's CV. The only thing the CV is used for is now her age which I think is fine. How does the article look now? Causalinfer (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to have missed the previous message. The article looks much better now, thanks for that. I've removed the template from the article, but there are still some points to improve:
 * One of the rules for biographies of living people is that self-published sources such as blogs are never allowed (see WP:BLPSPS). The NESTA blog isn't quite appropriate therefore
 * If 'bold public policy" is a quote, it should be in quote marks. Bold is quite a positive word, and people advocating for smaller governments would not use it, so we should attribute it or change it into something more neutral. (don't have access to source myself) Femke (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Bold" can be just be deleted and the Nesta reference replaced with the Guardian version of that article. Both sorted! Causalinfer (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)