Talk:The twelve pillars of wisdom

What's a good Category for this? Financial Planning? CyberBob 17:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This page is also a dead-end (no link to other wiki pages) and an orphan (no links from other pages to it), so once we figure out where it fits we should link to/from it. CyberBob 17:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


 * I put it in the "Book Reviews" category. It's not a perfect fit, but I think it's close enough, at least for now. Ken Schwartz 18:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Book Reviews category? Hmmm, didn't even consider that one. In fact, I only put the Bookbox on the right-hand side to try and make clear where the twelve pillars originated, and to somehow make this page seem less like a big text-grab from the book. Maybe mikenz can flesh it out into a real review, or at least link it to an actual review of the book. CyberBob 18:18, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Bob, you've raised two issues here:
 * Is this article appropriate for the "Book Reviews" category? I don't know, but "Book Reviews" already has "Meet the Bogleheads published authors in finance" as a subcategory! (As an aside, I've proposed on that category's talk page changing the name to the more formal "Bogleheads Authors.")
 * The text grab: As you commented, this article is nothing more than an extended quotation from a copyrighted book. I'm sure Bogle would happily grant his permission if we asked, since he doubtlessly desires as wide a dissemination of his 12 Pillars as possible. I doubt it's even worth wasting his time with an inquiry. However, we do need to keep copyright issues in our minds. Ken Schwartz 18:28, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there is too much text under each pillar. Listing the 12 pillars is OK but more copying and pasting doesn't look like "fair use" to me. The copyright of the book actually belongs to Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Used copies of Bogle on Mutual Funds sell for under $5 including shipping. Anybody interested in details of the 12 pillars should just buy the book or get the book from a library. Tfb 21:05, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Good point, tfb. Perhaps Bogle's permission (explicit or implicit) isn't all we need. Ken Schwartz 22:44, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I've revamped the category structure in this corner of the wiki, and I've placed this article in "Books and Authors." Ken Schwartz 23:54, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

The Twelve Pillars, which John Bogle first laid out in his book, Bogle on Mutual Funds, and which he revisits at length in his remarks at The Arizona Republic Investment Strategies Forum Phoenix, Arizona, April 27, 2001.

John Bogle on the Twelve Pillars


 * Pillar 1. Investing Is Not Nearly as Difficult as It Looks
 * Pillar 2. When All Else Fails, Fall Back on Simplicity
 *  Pillar 3. Time Marches On
 * Pillar 4. Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained
 * Pillar 5. Diversify, Diversify, Diversify
 * Pillar 6. The Eternal Triangle
 * Pillar 7. The Powerful Magnetism of the Mean
 * Pillar 8. Do Not Overestimate Your Ability to Pick Superior Equity Mutual Funds, nor Underestimate Your Ability to Pick Superior Bond and Money Market Funds
 *  Pillar 9. You May Have a Stable Principal Value or a Stable Income Stream, But You May Not Have Both
 * Pillar 10. Beware of "Fighting the Last War"
 *  Pillar 11. You Rarely, If Ever, Know Something The Market Does Not
 * Pillar 12. Think Long-Term

Category:Books and Authors

basis for new version? Blbarnitz 20:21, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Barry, I wish I knew more about the legalities involved. The original article may ultimately be acceptable, but I strongly suspect we would need to obtain some permissions. Your cut-down version seems to fall comfortably within fair use if we add our own explanatory text. Ken Schwartz 20:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


 * The new version looks good. Because Mr. Bogle already explained the details for each pillar in the linked speech, I don't think we need to add our own interpretation. We can just use a numbered list (#), instead of section headings (==). Tfb 22:17, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


 * I like Barry's compact edited version too. Especially, if as Tfb mentions, we should just leave the article primarily as a mention, rather than adding more information to try and make it a more in-depth article. --CyberBob 09:24, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Barry, you've placed this talk page into a category, which seems confusing. I assume you're simply illustrating the category placement you would use if this proposal were adopted as the actual page. I haven't removed the categorization, in case I'm wrong.

I think this approach to the article is OK. Ken Schwartz 23:42, 12 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Ken, I copied the original category this page occupied; I have removed the brackets. Blbarnitz 23:59, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Since nobody has objected to Barry's latest iteration, I've copied it to the article. Ken Schwartz 18:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)