Murray Rothbard has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Economics GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Contemporary GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy Objectivism GA‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Libertarianism GA‑class High‑importance Murray Rothbard is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state): Columbia University GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).

While I dropped out of the above discussion, I certainly don't see any agreement to remove all that high quality material which I put back the info and Seven high quality refs at this diff. I also copied blackwell and it does not call him a theorist. Please find a ref for that assertion in the lead sentence. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 05:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Newt Gingrich is not characterized as a "historian", despite teaching history and having a Ph.D, because he is not notable for work as a historian. Rothbard is not notable as an "economist" and should not be described as such in the lede. he is notable as a (fringe) political theorist and activist. Like Newt (for some time) with respect to history, economics is how Murray made a living, and (again like newt) the Ph.D a credential Murray cited to boost his credibility.

The compromise text indicates that Murray had a Ph.D in econ and taught in Brooklyn and Vegas. Mentioning him as an "economist" of the "Austrian school" seems superfluous and subjective. Steeletrap (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the material is of good quality and should appear in the article. Rothbard was a profesor of economics, and notable member of the Austrian School of Economics, eventhough he wrote extensively as a philosopher and as a historian. -- Fsol (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:North8000 put the material back again, after Steeletrap deleted it so he evidently believes it belongs there. I also did a bit more research on his academic credentials and put that in to clarify some factoids. There's lots more out there on his significance as an economist. Just have to do the research. User:Carolmooredc 18:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on this, I put it back in from a process standpoint. Mass undiscussed deletion of references. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. User:Carolmooredc 18:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also no agreement to remove economist info box

I put that back too. Removing it was not part of the RfC. The RfC only covered order of mentioning things, and that can be changed if it becomes clear economist was the more notable factor, which just a little bit of research can clarify. (Again, where are the actual references showing him described as a theorist? Sure we can see he was through our own reading, but our own reading is not a reliable source.) Working on this now. User:Carolmooredc 18:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus, endorsed by Srich, Steeletrap, and myself at various times was to replace the infobox economist with a generic infobox. You should undo your re-insertion of the economist infobox, which flouts the consensus reached in the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few editor haphazardly discussing something is not an agreement And at the above section "Removal_of_Economist_infobox" after your first removal, I did not see any dissent. And that is the only sectioned discussion of it. I doubt that any RfC or NPOVN discussion would support such a drastic move. If you think such a drastic move is necessary, do another RfC.(Hopefully only announced to the most relevant 4 or 5 wikiprojects.) User:Carolmooredc 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the close of the RfC as embodied in the last 3 posts among Srich, Steeletrap and me. Changing the infobox template was discussed repeatedly and confirmed by Srich at the end of the RfC. Thwarting the consensus of a freshly closed RfC is tendentious. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC focused on the question of listing Rothbard first as an economist. As "theorist" was the agreed compromise, changing the infobox to a non-economist template is a natural progression. (WP:IBX has guidance.) Since the consensus is for a non-economist-prominent lede, I recommend against using the econ infobox. Restoring the economist info-box only re-opens the can of worms WRT what school of econ MR is in. E.g., he is prominent as an anarco-capitalist, but AC does not have agreed upon colors in the economist infobox template. Recommend modifying the infobox and use {{infobox scholar}}. (The RfC remained open for 30 days and was well advertised. The discussion was not a haphazard one in the least.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, as you know well, RfC's can't override policy and you can't replace info from 7 sources with info with no explicit source saying theorist. Even if you do have a mighty 9 to 6 "vote." So this probably should be taken elsewhere as a policy violating process, just like the Block discussion at WP:BLPN is. But I was so fed up at the time - and probably will soon be again, that I did not do so. I'll go find out where to take it. User:Carolmooredc 19:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "political theorist" is vague enough and broad enough to properly characterize MR. After all, he wrote about a lot of subjects and many, many of them dealt with politics, government, and the like. The reference to the BLPN confuses me. BLP does not apply to MR. What policy is being violated? (Please note that I "voted" for economist.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason the RfC was bogus was that it was done a day after we started discussion seriously beefing up the economics section and I said I would. As User:Specifico wrote above "Great. Do your research, gather all the RS you can find and post here to moot your loot. We may yet make him an economist here. Good luck. Looking forward to it." Rather than let the process unfold, Specifico the next day created an RfC to short cut my editing. And you wonder why I got disgusted and left?? I should have reported to him ANI, but how many times a week can one do that?? User:Carolmooredc 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WP needs "bogus RfC" or "pointless RfC" Noticeboard. Your suggestions for improvement to the RfC would certainly have been welcome. Sorry to see that you are disgusted – I recommend posting the {{User frustrated}} template on your UP or TP. I have, and my goal is to overcome the frustration. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That also was during the same days that User:Specifico posted so many bogus notices on my talk page I had to report her to WP:ANI. So it took me this long to realize how bogus the whole thing was! Plus at the time I did not know you could pull back an RfC as you so helpfully mentioned the other day. User:Carolmooredc 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been an Rfc or development of consensus on this talk page specifically about the infobox, just some suggestions that the economist box be used and some suggestions that another type of infobox be used, either scholar or untitled. To me, it looks like a hatchet job on Rothbard's career to even consider using a different infobox than the economist one, stating plainly that Rothbard was a proponent of the Austrian school.

• Gerard Casey (philosopher) said Rothbard "was widely regarded as the intellectual leader of the younger generation of the Austrian school..." Page 7 of Murray Rothbard, ISBN 9781623563165
• Ralph Raico said Rothbard was "one of the most prominent" among "later Austrian economists, following in Mises's footsteps." Page 45 of Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School, ISBN 9781610165549
• Edward Elgar Publishing writes a blurb to describe their Rothbard book The Logic of Action Two: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School. The description appears online:[4] "Murray N. Rothbard was the leading voice of the Austrian School of Economics during its post-war American revival... The book confirms Rothbard as an intellectual giant, and presents his many contributions to the Austrian School..."
• Randall G. Holcombe edited a book about 15 influential Austrian economists in which Hans-Hermann Hoppe authored a chapter devoted solely to Rothbard: chapter 15. Hoppe said that "Murray N. Rothbard has come to occupy a position of unique influence within the intellectual tradition of Austrian economics... Rothbard is the latest representative of the mainstream within Austrian economics... Rothbard is the main exponent of the main rationalist branch of Austrian School... Rothbard is the latest and most comprehensive system-builder within Austrian economics... Rothbard is the latest and most systematically political Austrian economist... In the area of theoretical economics, Rothbard contributed two major advances beyond standards set by Mises's Human Action." Pages 223–226 of The Great Austrian Economists, ISBN 9781610164399
• In the same Holcombe-edited book as above, Thomas DiLorenzo writes in passing about Rothbard. He says that Frederic Basquiat was "a model of scholarship for those Austrians who believed that general education—especially the kind of economic education that shatters the myriad myths and superstitions created by the state and its intellectual apologists—is an essential function (if not duty) of the economist. Mises was a superb role model in this regard, as were Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard, among other Austrian economists."
• Randall G. Holcombe himself said in the foreword to The Great Austrian Economists that "Two of Mises's American students stand out for their academic achievements and for their impact on the modern Austrian school: Israel M. Kirzner, an author of one of this volume's chapters, and Murray N. Rothbard, an author of two chapters and is profiled in a third chapter. Both established reputations as insightful economists, prolific authors, and—more to the point for present purposes—strong proponents of the Austrian School. They influenced students, not only at their own universities, but at other universities as well, by giving seminars and speaking at conferences, and of course through the impact of their writing. While Austrian economists are still rare in academic institutions, many of those students influenced by Kirzner and Rothbard now hold academic positions, and are in turn influencing a new generation of students." Quoting pages x and xi of the Introduction.
• Italian scholar Roberta A. Modugno wrote a book in Italian about Rothbard, then she edited and wrote a book in English, titled Rothbard vs. the Philosophers. Modugno says of Rothbard that he wrote a textbook on Austrian economics to be used for university students: Man, Economy, and State. Modugno describes how Rothbard started as an economist and then used his economics background as a springboard to write about liberalism and against social Darwinism, to write critically of Mises and Hayek, all based on economics theory. She says "Rothbard's criticism of Hayek is paradigmatic of the split we find today within the Austrian School of economics between the libertarians who refer back to Locke's version of the idea of right reason that enables an understanding of natural law, and the heirs of the theory, typical of the Austrian School, of a limited, fallible, and evolutionist kind of knowledge." She says Rothbard's 1992 work, The Present State of the Austrian School of Economics was the defining work which described the split.
• David Gordon (philosopher) said "Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar of extraordinary range, made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He developed and extended the Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises, in whose seminar he was a main participant for many years. He established himself as the principal Austrian theorist in the latter half of the twentieth century and applied Austrian analysis to topics such as the Great Depression of 1929 and the history of American banking." From page 7 of The Essential Rothbard, ISBN 9781610164580
• Lew Rockwell says that "Rothbard led the renaissance of the Austrian School of economics." Page 442 of Speaking of Liberty, ISBN 9781610163378

All of this scholarship cannot be ground down by two or three Wikipedia editors who do not like Rothbard as an economist, and wish to erase his contribution. He was foundational and influential, a leader of the Austrians. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you were not here to participate in the RfC before it was closed, but its conclusion was clear and there was no disagreement with the stated outcome a day before the close. The RfC was closed with a clear statement of the result, including the infobox change. If you disagree as to the outcome, Perhaps I guess you could ask an admin to review the close or you could open a new RfC if you wish to reopen the question. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references you cite do not invalidate the outcome of the RfC, which is really all that matters until a different consensus is duly achieved, and it appears on a quick look that the references are all from employees of Rothbard in his capacity as program director at the Mises Institute. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the RfC's failure to comply with WP:RS policy wasn't obvious, and there was a valid consensus, consensus can change, especially as more info about Rothbard's notability as an economist is put in. Please stop interferring with our attempts to improve the article. This bio of a not-living person is my only Wikiproject right now besides dealing with daily minor issues on other articles as they arise. I really don't want to have to keep debating on the talk page and running to noticeboards until I'm too tired to research and write. You've seen my ability to come up wit lots of WP:RS info. And User:Binksternet has added some above. Let us do our work. Thank you. User:Carolmooredc 03:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rfc is now old news, unfortunately. I have been looking at books on the Austrian School, and Rothbard is cited by every Austrian scholar as very important as an economist. Your swipe at the notable economists and philosophers as being "employees of Rothbard's" cannot be of the least importance to us. We find the people who are the experts in the Austrian School and we look at what they say about Rothbard. What they say is that he was a giant in economics. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment on the RfC (since I have no opinion on the substance of the dispute): Next time you have an RfC for a dispute, get someone to close it who wasn't a participant. Unless the RfC discussion is very one-sided, an interested-party close usually has much less influence than getting a dispassionate judgement of the result. --RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• note to specifico the question posed in the RFC was 'what should be listed first' - editors are not expected to follow all of the discussion and weigh in on every compromise proposal. In any case, the sources provided by binksternet above completely dismantle any opposition to the use of the term 'economist' to describe him and the use of the economist info-box. Your continued removal of it I can only see as disruptive, and citing an RFC means nothing because the infobox was not the subject of the RFC (which was instead about ordering of terms in the lede). I really cannot comprehend the motives here - the 'x is not notable for Y' argument is used for actors who used to wait tables, not for intellectuals who contribute in many areas. Economist is clearly WP:defining for this fellow, and no claims of 'those guys were his students' will undo that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obi, the close of this RfC was botched, I think that much is clear. I've requested assistance in that matter. The purpose of the RfC was to resolve a contentious and distracting dispute and it did not end up achieving that. As to your comment about the text added by binksternet, I don't see the assertion "seminal..." in any of those sources, and the multiple citations don't strengthen the case. A single conclusive citation would be sufficient. I'm disappointed that you see my editing as disruptive, but you're entitled to your opinion. I'd be glad to discuss that further on my talk page if you wish. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been tracking the editing closely, more following the TP conversations, so I'm not sure what the allusion to "seminal" means. Again, I wandered in here randomly, and I see people claiming X isn't an economist, even though reams of sources are produced claiming he is. Thus far, I've seen nothing to weaken the argument that he is a prominent member of the Austrian school of economics. He certainly had other influences, and that's really a question of the weight in the article itself. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the RfC also is challenged because a) it was brought prematurely before editing was allowed to deal with the issue, i.e., you brought it less than 24 hours after I promised to add relevant material on economist, (one of several reasons I got disgusted and took a 3 week wiki-break from this article); b) because there are WP:RS issues, i.e. NO current references for theoriest vs 7 high quality ones for economist; and c) because it has been used to excuse removal of critical material that was not a subject of the RfC, i.e., that Rothbard even was an economist removed from lead (since replaced) and removal of the economist infobox. User:Carolmooredc 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It matters very little in the face of the new and very powerful sources I brought to this thread, ones which emphatically state Rothbard's leadership of the Austrian School in the second half of the 20th century, also stated by as Rothbard's leadership of one half of a split in the Austrian School. Either way he's supremely important as an economist, and so the economist infobox is suitable. Also, the economist text should be brought to the fore. It's too bad nobody at the Rfc was pointing to such strong sources, but now we are all looking at them, and the consensus has changed. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a number of good references were mentioned under Favor economist first and you have added more. If we can stop the administrative etc haggling from those who say he doesn't have enough good economic refs in the article, maybe we'll have time to put in more information on his economic achievements. After all we all can spend only a few hours a day on wikipedia, not 24. User:Carolmooredc 18:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that Rothbard lacks references -- it's that he lacks achievements. It's tenuous to say he's a notable economist per WP:SCHOLAR whereas reliable sources such as the NY Times and sundry obituaries worldwide credit Rothbard with being the prime mover in the anarcho-capitalist political theory. That is his great legacy. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to have that purely personal viewpoint but do not obstruct the work of those who would like to document whatever WP:RS say they are. User:Carolmooredc 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks achievements? That's bullshit. If you can post in English on the internet you can read what the references above have said about Rothbard. Please do so before you make such ridiculous statements again. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks achievements as an economist. We have no (zero) WP:RS which states that his work as an economist is more significant than his work in originating Anarcho-capitalism and spurring the modern-day libertarian movement in the USA. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you purposely ignored the reliable sources I pointed out above? Randall G. Holcombe said Rothbard stood out because of his "academic achievements" in economics and for his "impact on the modern Austrian school" of economics. I will believe Holcombe before I believe you editing here as an anonymous economist of the Austrian School[5] who has expressed intense distaste for the Mises "gang" and its "hijack" of the Austrian School. Your conflict of interest is openly stated and far too problematic in this biography. You are obstinately refusing to accept that Rothbard was highly respected by others of the Austrian School. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<< Rothbard was highly respected by others of the Austrian School. >> Bink, that is not in dispute, is it? Please find an RS that says Rothbard's contributions to economics surpass his contributions to the political theory of Anarcho-capitalism. That is the content question here. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence, the article used Justin Raimondo's An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard to cast Rothbard as more of a political theorist than an economist. I assume you approved of this formation. Have you read the Raimondo book? He writes on page 11 that, "to sum up the life and work" of Rothbard is a problem of assessing the extensive totality, that Rothbard's career "constitutes an intellectual system encompassing not only economics and political economy, but also philosophy, ethics, history, and indeed a wide range of social thought" which progressed in Rothbard from "Old Right" to "New Left" and back again in his later years. (Note how economics comes first according to Raimondo, and everything else is second.) Raimondo calls Rothbard's History of Economic Thought "magisterial". Raimondo says Rothbard was a greatly influential theorist of the Austrian School, that he "not only systematized and perfected the insights of Ludwig von Mises and his school of pure free-market economics, but also fought to establish an American beachhead for the Misesian school—and did it almost single-handedly." In his book, Raimondo writes primarily about Rothbard's politics, but he acknowledges how difficult it is to capture the essence of Rothbard's total career. He winds up the introduction to his book by saying future biographers of Rothbard will be faced with the thorny decision of how to frame a "seamlessly integrated portrait of the man", that such biographers will have to "discuss his contributions to economic thought and political philosophy" in order to get at his contribution to libertarianism. (Once again economics is first.) Moving far ahead to page 380, Raimondo concludes his book by saying Rothbard is first an economist who "succeeded in firmly establishing the Austrian School of economics in America, expanding and refining the legacy of his great mentor, Ludwig von Mises, and separating out the pure Misesian perspective from all others." After that, Rothbard must be considered the originator of a sort of 'unified field theory' of social science which is of course the anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism. Thus, despite his interest in explaining Rothbard's political side, Raimondo admits that Rothbard is first and foremost an influential economist. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bink. Please don't attribute views to me which I have not stated and if you wish to discuss a statement which I have in fact made, please provide diffs. There is an RfC on the matter of the priority of economist vs. political theorist and editors have participated there. I have stated my view in the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the section up to under his other views, removed the wp:undue sectioning, the load of primary material and the references that do not directly mention Rothbard. I haven't read the confederacy article yet for accuracy and neutrality, and it obviously needs to be cut and based on secondary sources if any of the material is to remain. I'll give you all time to find it.

The following policy quote applies to all articles, not just WP:BLPs:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

But tomorrow is another day... User:Carolmooredc 05:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary RS are always helpful (though, regrettably, this "secondary or bust" standard doesn't seem to be applied to the positive/hagiographical material in these Mises Scholar entries.

Regarding Barnes/revisionism, I have most fortuitously found a treasure trove of sources in the Justin Raimondo hagiography (see: here). There is also ample discussion of Rothbard's support for the Confederacy. I will add these (and perhaps other) RS to the historical revisionism section later tonight. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Barnes material

I agree that we should look for secondary sources re: Rothbard and historical revisionism. I disagree with deleting the secondary RS material about Barnes's work on WWII. Since Rothbard praised Barnes as a revisionist historian of WWII, it's informative and encyclopedic to describe Barnes's revisionist work on WWII(per the Lipstadt RS, holocaust denial and support of Hitler's foreign policies). I agree that any synthesis needs to be avoided, but the passage as it stands does not imply Rothbard endorsed (or rejected) Barnes's views on WWII/Holocaust, so there is no synthesis. (Similarly, noting that David Duke, whom Rothbard also praised and cited as an example for "paleolibertarians", was a white nationalist and a former KKK grand wizard is not synth, as it does not imply Murray is a WN or pro-KKK. Steeletrap (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not necessary to create a new subsection to deal with every thread. Thus making this a subsection of above.

At this diff Steeletrap cut up a Rothbard quote to make so it looks like he was responding to the publications that make allegations about Barnes, when he was dead when two of the three were written. Quite sloppy and POV. Also, he has writings replying to specifically these types of allegations, possibly by Ms. Lipstadt.

In the last week you have been told repeatedly that we need secondary sources that say something is notabile. Search books google you'll probably find some. User:Carolmooredc 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, please try to stay on topic (and, per admin warning) please try to follow WP policy by adopting an assumption of good faith in these discussions. I did no such thing with the Rothbard quote, which was written decades before the Lipstadt RS, but was obviously largely responding to criticism of Barnes from virtually all of his peers after WWII; please strike your erroneous accusation. This episode is reminiscent of your erroneous insistence that I identify as an economist.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand: The bit about Barnes's denialism/support for Nazi foreign policies has deeply credible secondary sources (Lipstadt's book). Including it in this piece is informative and does not entail synthesis. Please let me know (without personal attacks and erroneous accusations) where my analysis is wrong. Steeletrap (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the diff, you split the Rothbard primary source quote, leaving first part with no ref. Please stop making false accusations of personal attacks every time someone points out how a result of your action might be perceived. (And just to be clear I clarified my meaning above.) You were told to stop doing that at the recent ANI. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 18:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI said no such thing about me specifically. Second, the quote was there because Murray's defense of Barnes from critics fit logically after a description of Barnes's views, not because I was implying Murray was refuting a book written after he was dead. Lipstadt isn't even mentioned by name in the text, so I have no idea how readers could draw this inference, despite the typographical error in which the word "he" rather than "rothbard" was used. Please stop making erroneous accusations. Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You brought the ANI and numerous complains so I have a right to respond accurately. The closer wrote “your diffs do not support your claims” (and carol should keep her temper). Other editors mentioned problems with the allegations, including here. Stop interpreting every vague or ambiguous statement as an attack on you and you'll feel a lot better. User:Carolmooredc 19:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user was speaking generally to "anti-Carolites", and attributed inappropriate conduct to you and exaggerated or incorrect claims to anti-Carolites. No anti-Carolite (me or anyone else) was specifically singled out, and you continue to mislead or misunderstand on this point.

Alas, we really need to get back on topic. Steeletrap (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are number one on the list of 3 accusers (anti-Carolites, hmmm, is it a club :-)? Don't bring ANI's up if you don't want to take reponsibility for your actions. User:Carolmooredc 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical revisionism deserves its own section

Per the words of Murray himself and many RS cited in the article, historical revisionism is seminal to the work of this libertarian scholar (While the current section uses too few secondary RS, I have many I'm going to add later tonight). Therefore, I argue it deserves a section of its own. It also makes no logical sense to list "historical revisionism" under "ethical and political views", since we have to presume that this methodology is concerned with the facts of history rather than a view of history distorted by political and ethical attachments. In other words, it's OR to call Murray's revisionist view of history a political or ethical belief. Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing WP:RS sourcing with personal WP:OR

At this diff user:Steeletrap ignores all principles of NPOV by replacing info from Sage Publications, an academic publisher, as the framer of the issue. Just a few weeks ago at this diff Steeletrap removed info from Raimondo because he was "a friend of Rothbard who is not a philosopher or an academia and wrote a hagiography about him". Glad to see he's had a change of heart, but it is true that an academically published assessment should frame the article and Raimondo and Rothbard quotes can support that framing. Deleting that neutral academic framing and putting in material from "WP:RS" that don't mention Rothbard at all is very much against WP:NPOV policy. Please reread the policy. User:Carolmooredc 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raimondo is not a philosopher and has no authority on philosophical matters. However, basic biographical details of Rothbard's life are fine from such a (hagiographical/non-academic) source. Steeletrap (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your other concern, it is OT/SYN as to whom Barnes "inspired"; what's important is who this man was whom Rothbard admired so much/what characterized his revisionist work on World War II (which Rothbard "championed"). The answers, from RS (which you keep deleting) are: Holocaust Denial and support for Hitler's foreign policies. Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this response addresses why you removed the International Encyclopedia of Political Science, which is exactly the kind of source we should be using. Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the source, but the source is (in my view) used to cite in off-topic/OR claim, about whom Barnes inspired. I (a noob) have difficulty deleting text without deleting their accompanying sources, and I'm sorry for the problems that has caused. Steeletrap (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Carol has (here) removed an RS by Emory University Historian Deborah Lipstadt that, in contrast to the above off-topic discussion of whom Barnes inspired (which was deleted for the reasons provided above), detailed what Barnes's work as a "revisionist historian" actually consisted of. Steeletrap (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a good removal, because this is not the Barnes biography. Binksternet (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how, in the context of a passage discussing the influence Barnes's revisionist work on WWII had on Rothbard, an RS discussion of what characterized that work is OT/Syn, but a discussion of other people (unrelated to Murray) who Barnes influened is not off-topic/syn. Steeletrap (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Review opinion piece hatchet job a reliable source on revisionism??

At this diff, User:Steeletrap counters the opinion of a neutral reliable source on Rothbard and revisionism International Encyclopedia of Political Science with a ranting opinion piece Hatchet Job from the National Review which hates libertarians for opposing the wars they seek with such blood thirsty imperialistic motivations? It's "scholarly" title is "WP:RS Courting the Cranks" and it says things like: , right-wing fringe nuttery...a rainbow of fruit flavors...thanks in no small part to two of the Right’s great confectioners of kookery — Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. (So we know where he stands on the gay issue, I guess.)

The rest of the article is filled with such biased comments, including the quasi quotes used by the editor on historical revisionism and WWII. Of course, you won't see in National Review the bits about Zionist groups that worked with Hitler on things like the "Haavara Agreement" for the transfer of Jews to Israel and on pressuring the US, England and other nations not to take Jews who didn't want to go to Israel. Perhaps Rothbard wrote about that or defended Barnes writing about it and we need to add that to the article.

Obviously "National Review" is still promoting a big mideast war to kill millions of Arabs and Iranians and Muslims and take back Israel for the Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity, and they can't have the Ron Pauls of the world standing in their way. (They probably support the plan to draft all the gays and feminists and put them in the front lines to clear the landmines and charge the machine gun nests.) But all of the above just gives one a taste of how biased this publication is... on the topic of war, far too biased for any dispassionate use on the topic.

Considering the above, I'm surprised Williamson DOES say some nice things that are quite quotable and could be used if his ranting hatchet job is considered a reliable source. Just a couple:

• "...Murray Rothbard, a brilliant man and in many ways an admirable one. ..."
• "He was a tireless exponent of the Austrian school of economics and had a real talent for exposing the self-interested motives of self-proclaimed patriots and esurient servants of the public weal who spent the post-war era building what he dubbed the “welfare-warfare state.”"
• He admits that Rothbard "loathed National Review, and wrote about the magazine acidly and obsessively"
• "In his more rigorous mode, Rothbard is defensible as a political theorist; agree with him or not, his critique of the state is compelling and intellectually coherent. "
• " He believed that American militarism supplies its own enemies..." User:Carolmooredc 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your above quotations of Williamson's (often effusive) praise of Rothbard, written in the cited piece, contradict your claim of its being a "hatchet job." I invite and encourage you to quote any of the above where appropriate in the entry.

Given Williamson's evident regard for Rothbard's intellect and for at least some of his work, as well as the nuanced, charitable, and even-handed fashion in which he examines this scholar's life and work, I think we have to take the words of this RS all the more seriously regarding his criticism of Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" in Holocaust Denial. Steeletrap (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive praise and ranting criticism in an opinion piece in an advocacy publication are both indications that an article is not an encyclopedic reference, especially when the publication is an advocacy one opposed to the political view of an individual or group of individuals in a current political struggle, the struggle over whether to get the US involved in 10 trillion dollar war that could escalate to world nuclear war. Anyway, even if WP:RSN editors opined it useable for this article, a careful reading and use would make those biases - and his long term struggle with National Review which is mentioned in the article - clear. But I'll give others a chance to opine before re-reading it. User:Carolmooredc 12:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it is best if opinion pieces (ranting or not) are cited for the author's opinions and not for matters of fact. Criticisms from a notable source may be worthy of inclusion even if they are deeply biased, provided they are explicitly described as the opinions of the particular author. That appears to be the case here. For claims of fact, on the other hand, such pieces are a very poor choice. Biographical books, journal articles and non-opinion news pieces should be preferred instead. --RL0919 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we don't really get new facts from this OP-ed. We already know from other sources in the piece that Rothbard was closely associated with and broadly and effusively praised the "revisionist" WWII work of Holocaust denial historians like Harry Elmer Barnes. The "culpably indulgent" bit is the author's opinion, based on Rothbard's praise for the work of and association with deniers. Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a comparison, suppose I say (owing to his association with and praise for The Donald) Mitt Romney was "culpably indulgent" of Birthers in the 2012 election. That statement is a value-laden opinion, not a fact. Steeletrap (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In proper context, something like this might be appropriate (and I haven't thoroughly verified he says the what is asserted he says below, so this is all real rough draft):

In an opinion piece in the National Review columnist Kevin D. Williamson, calls Rothbard "a tireless exponent of the Austrian school of economics" but criticizes Rothbard's (noninterventionist/antiwar/whatever Williamson says) views and his revisionist views on the origins of World War II. He also criticizes Rothbard's association with (__I'll see who Williamson actually mentions__) and thus accuses "Rothbard and his faction" (faction needs description) of being "________??" of Holocaust Denial.

I have been working on beefing up the economics section to prevent it's proposed removal by Steeletrap which a couple of us have contested. But obviously fuller context, like moving relevant info down from non-interventionism, is needed to thorough debunk the guilt by association charges of this obviously tainted National Review writer. I did add opinion piece and remove puerile quote about third reich; isn't there a word/phrase for using "Nazi" when you don't have an argument? Or a tag or template or something? Geez. User:Carolmooredc 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More POV editing in User:Goetheon reverting back to baseless charge in: Williamson writes and someone paraphrases in the article: The Holocaust tends to get in the way of the Hitler-was-an-innocent-bystander view of history, and so Rothbard found himself making common cause with the “revisionist” historians of the Third Reich. So when the Third Reich existed there were a lot of "revisionist" historians working for Hitler? All those guys besides Rothbard who Williamsom mentions? This Opinion is now being conveyed as a fact? See Dubious tag. And of course Steeletrap removing this from a totally neutral source just turns this article into what he calls a "walled garden." I put it back: Rothbard, like libertarians associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, held that historical revisionism is related to freedom of speech, truth and rationality as opposed to propaganda, indoctrination and mythologies promoted to a gullible public. User:Carolmooredc 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still just guilt by association nonsense

Steeletrap's minor changes resulting in the below is still nothing but guilt by association, which is both dubious and against Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone which reads: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.
Do we really need to explicitly say "guilt by association" in the policy?
So who wants to argue that this business based on somone's mere opinion is an impartial tone:

Rothbard's revisionist work on World War II and his association with revisionist historians have drawn criticism. Kevin D. Williamson wrote an opinion piece published by National Review which condemned Rothbard for "making common cause with the “revisionist” historians of the Third Reich", a term he used to describe American Holocaust Deniers associated with Rothbard, such as James J. Martin of the Institute for Historical Review. The piece also characterized "Rothbard and his faction" as being "culpably indulgent" of Holocaust Denial, or the view which "specifically denies that the Holocaust actually happened or holds that it was in some way exaggerated".[62]

If Rothbard actually said something dubious about the Nazi persecution of Jews, quote it. If everyone here thinks it's fine and dandy will inquire for other's opinions next week. User:Carolmooredc 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merely to quote Rothbards words might raise concern over WP:OR. We need the secondary RS which you cite above. Anyway, why censor this or that view of Rothbard? This particular issue seems consistent with his "controversialist" style and commitment to historical revisionism in a broad variety of contexts. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are quoting an opinion from an RS (which is favorable to Rothbard in many respects), not endorsing a particular point of view. It is *your* OR to say guilt by association (more like guilt by "endorsement", as Rothbard has broadly endorsed the "war revisionist" work of deniers in addition to palling around with them, while dancing around the issue of their denial) is an unfair criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case any neutral editors want to opine, [I] put at WP:RSN. User:Carolmooredc 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@carolmooredc: This is not clear. Are you saying that you have opened a thread at RSN, or are you sugesting that suggesting that some other editor might do so? Please write complete sentences so as to ensure that other editors can understand. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put... Past tense Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Review_opinion_rant. User:Carolmooredc 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the existing title which needs to be more general, like "VIEWPOINTS". And there is some info under Noninterventionism that could be moved in the subsection to give a fuller context. But let's try to find some more secondary sources or see the whole section eventually nixed as OR. User:Carolmooredc 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed it to the more general viewpoints, but without discussion here, and editor changed it back. I hope we don't need an RfC on this. Changed section title to make discussion clear. Though if there's a better option, I'm open to it. User:Carolmooredc 23:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an explanation for revert. User:Carolmooredc 18:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More logical ordering

I see that someone changed it to "Ethical and theoretical views" but left the mis-mashed intro and illogical order, including no ethics section. I fixed it. User:Carolmooredc 22:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the OR and primary sourced material rightfully deleted, there is little left on the "economics" section. If we cannot find secondary RS that respond to Rothbard's substantive "contributions" to economics, I propose this section be deleted or merged with "viewpoints." With such scant material, it does not currently deserve its own section. Steeletrap (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good comparison for purposes of our discussion of whether Murray's alleged economics contributions are notable/deserving of their own section is the entry of Gary Becker, who is like Murray is an outspoken libertarian. Numerous Sub-sections of Becker's WP relate to his substantive, value-free contributions to economics, i.e., his findings regarding the following: the marginal benefits of divorce and marriage under various circumstances; the valuation entrepreneurs and consumers place on discrimination unrelated to worker productivity; and the deadweight entailed by the competition of interest groups in the democratic process. These findings (as opposed to Becker's normative assertion that the male-female and black-white wage gaps may not be undesirable social outcomes) are descriptive, empirical and scientific.

In contrast, Murray's "economics" statements seem to be normative and prescriptive (i.e. unscientific) in nature, and relate to how he thinks "the free society" ought to be run. I see no evidence that any of his work involved economic research or social science (i.e. the testing of theories through empirical observation) of any kind, so WP:fringe is also a concern. Steeletrap (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give it til monday :-) I tend to hoard lots of good refs on my harddrive until I get more than enough and have been sitting on them for a while, given 3 weeks of taking a break and then more noticeboard/BLP contretemps. So I am a bit behind.... User:Carolmooredc 22:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to wait. Nothing is permanent here. If you find any RS material you can start an Economist section. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible suggestion—trying to delete a section because of removals of text by Wikipedia editors. What is needed is to actually write about Rothbard's career, you know, to study what it was about and find appropriate references. You can start with the list of books I added to the thread above.

Is it the case that some editors here have no idea how important was Rothbard's contribution to economics? If so, these editors must either educate or recuse themselves. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you read the below all will become clear to you. User:Carolmooredc 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@binksternet -- Hello Bink. I haven't seen anyone suggest that the current RS material on Rothbard's economic beliefs should be deleted. I believe that Steeletrap's proposal was to move this text so that its placement comports with the presentation of other sections presenting Rothbard's views. At any rate, if you have well-sourced discussion of Rothbard's economic theories that would be helpful. I think that the statement by Trovatore below is helpful. Rothbard's case is like that of Karl Marx. Marx's close supporters might call him an economist first, but the most neutral way to characterize him is, as Trovatore stated, economist second. Rothbard is similar, leaving aside the notability of either Rothbard or Marx's thought. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish editors would take time to understand points before responding to them. No one says we should delete the ample RS material in this piece; the question is whether a significant amount (or any, even) of the RS material relates to Rothbard's work as an economist. The Marx comparison is quite apt in many respects. Steeletrap (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say WP:RS material was not removed is not true. At this diff] I had to put back removal of all seven refs saying Rothbard was an economist of the Austrian school in the lead.

I assume either Steeletrap or Specifico took it out. Feel free to confess or ask me to do the work of looking for the relevant diff. So please do not tell me you have not tried to remove important WP:RS material. When one has to constantly deal with such nonsense, is there any wonder I had to take a break for 3 weeks!! That I don't have time to find more WP:RS? I cannot spend 15 hours a day on Wikipedia. I already am spending 3-5 hours a day this week dealing with problems caused by such editing. User:Carolmooredc 01:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please show the RS and quote the writing in it which says that Rothbard should be called an economist before a political theorist. Nobody wanted to remove "economist" only to put it second. It was not necessary for you to waste 3-5 hours finding 7 citations on something that was not disputed here. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)ta[reply]

Per the RFC's resolution, I deleted the in-text "economist" guff from the lede, which had the "seven RS". I certainly did not intend to remove the 7 citations altogether from the piece (just the specific passages which contained them), and if I (a noob of three months) did make such a mistake, I'm sure other editors corrected such a blatant error swiftly, bereft of non-GF accusations and insinuations. I do wish you (carol) would stop swiping at straw men; no one is arguing that we should "delete RS" from the piece. Steeletrap (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if User:Steeletrap did it once it would might be a noob mistake. Steeletrap did it twice:

• July 26th writing: (conforming lead paragraph to RfD consensus.)
• July 28th, 1:44 I put it back writing: (blackwell says economist, not theorist - tag need citation; there was no agreement to remove all the high quality references calling him an economist of the austrian school;)
• July 28, 19:41 Steeletrap took it out again writing: (reverted to previous edition that (per WP:con) describes murray's ph.d and work teaching econ but does not call him an "economist", since he isn't notable as such. (See my latest note on talk))

Please don't tell me that was a second accident. It was removal of sources because in your personal opinion Rothbard is not a notable economist.

• 2 hours later North8000 put it back and it's stayed since then. User:Carolmooredc 05:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention (both times) was to remove the text (without removing the sources). I will have to learn how to do that without also removing the sources from the entire article. I thank you for pointing my mistake out.

You intended to remove the text "economist of the Austrian school" because of your false assertion that "(per WP:con) describes murray's ph.d and work teaching econ but does not call him an "economist"; the removal of the sources just a byproduct of that. Also, I forgot to say above that the RfC which was 9 to 6 and improperly closed only said to put to put theorist first. I am not assuming bad faith, I am merely repeating back your own words and explaining the objective situation. User:Carolmooredc 20:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, please remember to follow policy by assuming good faith; on that note (and per WP:SOAPBOX), I ask you to please cross your baseless speculations about my motives in making these edits. Steeletrap (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I describe what you do and what you say, I am not speculating.... User:Carolmooredc 17:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's astounding that you think you can state with certainty the intent behind mistakes of other editors. I am not impressed by alleged claims of mind-reading (nor is this community, per WP:Fringe). Steeletrap (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary of Rothbard's economic view/achievements

I like to find a source that lists them. It looks like 30 pages of David Gordon's The Essential Rothbard] lists them all - but no easy 1 page summary (though I'll look again). One of those situations where too many refs make it hard to organize mass of material. Especially when have to spend so much time on dealing with questionable editing on Blps and reporting at WP:BLPN. Sigh... Guess I'll take the rest of the day off. Not an excuse to delete the economics section. Thanks.

I'm concerned about this source. Per David Gordon's wikipedia entry, he was a co-worker and close personal friend of Rothbard. He is not an economist nor an academic. His biography can be an important RS on many matters, but not on his contributions to economics. Steeletrap (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this has nothing to do with ideology. There are many libertarian economists who are not co-workers of Rothbard and use scientific methodologies; for instance, someone like Milton Friedman or Gary Becker, or (anarchist libertarian) Bryan Caplan or basically any prominent Chicago School economist. I'd love to hear from any of them regarding what they consider to be Rothbard's contributions to economics. The concern of editors stems from the citation of co-workers and friends/ non-economists to detail Rothbard's achievements. Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Clarify later: In other words if he trashes Rothbard, it's ok to use, but if he says something sensible it is not. And it's ok for Steeletrap at this diff to put back his co-worker Hoppe's statement "There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard." ROTFL. I'll explain it to you when I do it. User:Carolmooredc 22:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of this is unclear. What are the two "it"s to which this refers? SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I observe in passing that some parties in the camp of emphasizing Rothbard-as-economist seem to hear expressions of the contrary view as attacks on Rothbard. I think that's unnecessary and out of place. It is certainly possible to observe that, at least, Rothbard's main impact on people's consciousness (his "notability" in WP-speak) is primarily on the question of what is an ideal society rather than on the question of how humans behave in the economic sphere, and still broadly agree with Rothbard on the ideal-society question.

Now, a possible counter-argument is that Karl Marx is described as an economist (second, after "philosopher"), and I certainly don't think he did any "scientific" economics either. But then, it didn't really exist at the time, and it could be argued that "economist" should be interpreted in a way consonant with the categories of the time rather than against a fixed standard. --Trovatore (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if the same two editors had not been engaging in the same activity over a number of BLPs after writing things like the below, which I share in the spirit of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors which says "the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly" :

• This User:Steeletrap diff the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians... "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview.
• And This User:SPECIFCO diff I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition. The Mises gang have gone steadily down hill and, aside from providing a useful online archive of reprints, are currently devoted almost exclusively to expanding their own franchise through various means. They are no different in this respect than the vitamin supplement schemes...

(Much more of the same at this long deletion of talk page comments.)

I don't think a mere mortal can help but feel like there's quite a POV here. Unfortunately, while these and similar things have been quoted at ANI and NPOVN. For some reason (my guess is masses of counter-allegations against other(s) in response, instead of discussion of these obvious personal POVs), uninvolved editors don't take it seriously enough to issue strong warnings or sanctions. Just a little bit of warning are issued to both parties and the matter is dropped. Frustrating. Sigh... User:Carolmooredc 23:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carolmooredc that we cannot ignore the very obvious bias of Steeletrap and Specifico in dealing with this topic. The comments above are quite revealing. The problem is not just one of comparing reliable sources to achieve a proper balance of Rothbard's life. The problem that two editors are working against the reliable sources that tell us about how Rothbard's influence was huge in economics. Wikipedia does not care whether the Mises Institute is "expanding their own franchise" in the form of books which tell us that Rothbard was influential. These books are written by notable authors, and their views are significant views. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All editors, including Carol (who thinks very highly of Rothbard) and yourself, have their biases. Our contributions should be judged according to policy, in a non prejudicial matter. Please assume good faith regarding SPECIFICO and myself, or, if you aren't able to do that, report our supposedly disruptive conduct to the relevant noticeboard. Steeletrap (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly keep in mind the option of reporting your behavior. Disruptive behavior includes willful introduction of bias to an article, for the purpose of pushing a point of view. From what I've seen you are actively working against the Mises Institute sources whereas Wikipedia is happy to accept their books as reliable. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] Your speculations are laughably wrongheaded. Please put up or shut up regarding my "disruptive" beavhior. By that I mean: either report it to an ANI or, per WP:SOAPBOX, stop all the gossip about how horribly biased I am. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steeletrap. What evidence do you have I think very highly of Rothbard? Let's see the diff? I certainly have not said anything as positive as other editors on this page, including User:Binksternet. Do not interpret trying to uphold policy as being pov pushing without evidence. Please remove the comment if you cannot prove it. User:Carolmooredc 01:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. I never claimed to be able to "divine" your psychological state regarding Rothbard; it's an inference I have (reasonably) drawn from your edits and remarks on this page, as well as from remarks such as (1) "I do have better things to do than fight with these people. But I really can't see them trash Murray Rothbard and downgrade him from a professional economist (they took that out of the lead til I put it back) to a mere pundit." The clear implication is that, while we are in your view "trashing" and "libeling" various wiki biographies, which you had on your account unwatched and give up on, the case of our "trashing" Rothbard is uniquely appalling/worthy of fighting against.

Note that I am not accusing your pro-Rothbard (or libertarian) views of biasing your editing; I was merely pointing out that we all have ideological commitments here (anti-scientology, anti-libertarian, pro-"freedom lovers", etc). Now let's please stow this OT silliness and get back to the task of improving this article, with OP's admonition against out of place personal charges in mind. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to take out the fact that Elvis Presley was a musician and singer from the lead and tried to change his infobox from musical artist to actor, I'd also say you were trashing Presley. The comments are primarily prompted by the actions. User:Carolmooredc 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis had 100 platinum albums, etc. etc. "Economist" Rothbard apparently has no citations outside the circle of writers he hired in his capacity as Mises Institute honcho. By now the walled-garden problem has been explained to you several times and documented by uninvolved editors. If Elvis had only sung on Sunday to members of his mama's church in Memphis and had no platinum albums, we'd consider listing something else before "singer" in his bio. Your task, carolmooredc, is to find RS discussion of Rothbard's economic thought. No other editor can prevent you from finding those RS if they exist. On the other hand if such references do not exist, your disparaging speculations about other editors really won't change that. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification In going about your research, Carol, please note that work as an "economist" does not include

1) Expressing value-judgments about the way the economy should be run. (I know a "Rothbardian" Joe Six Pack at the pub I frequent; he says that we should "abolish the central bank", legalize "competing currencies", and so forth; these statements do not constitute the practice of or contributions to economics.) 2) repeating the simple statement that "Rothbard was a leading economist of the Austrian School", bereft of any discussion of his actual work as an economist (which more or less represents RS taking account of Murray's self-identification). (Note that we have already described his work teaching economics in Brooklyn and Vegas, and his Ph.D from Columbia)

Economics is a science. This means it (by definition!) involves formulating and testing hypotheses using various empirical methodologies. I encourage you to read my discussion on libertarian economist Gary Becker's contributions to economics (which are quite distinct from his personal values) to clarify any confusion. With this in mind, and policies like WP:fringe taken account of, please try to show us some contributions Rothbard has made to economics. Steeletrap (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: economics is the dismal science. But please don't go down the POV road of "economics is a science --> science is defined by main stream thinking amongst those who have tested theories, etc. --> those who disagree with the mainstream are heterodox --> heterodox, because it is outside the mainstream, is pseudoscience --> pseudoscience is fringe". (An admittedly flawed/butchered analogy.) My point is this: if there is no masquerading as "science", then labeling stuff as fringe in WP is not appropriate. In WP, "fringe" is more a term of art for editors to use when evaluating the proper balance in articles devoted to – prepare for oxymoron – genuine fringe topics. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point regarding POV et al. Science relates to the development of theories through observation and testing; a work which consists entirely of untested or untestable (e.g., value judgments) statements is not a work of science. This is a simple definitional issue that accords with WP:Fringe and follows logically from the definition of the term "science." Steeletrap (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap, again I call bullshit. The field of economics includes both practical economists and theoreticians. Rothbard was an extremely influential theoretician, per Gerard Casey (philosopher), Lew Rockwell, Ralph Raico, Randall G. Holcombe, Roberta A. Modugno, Thomas DiLorenzo and David Gordon (philosopher). I don't think you will be able to find adequate reliable sources to counteract the facts from these notable observers who are all in agreement that Rothbard was a giant in economics. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With perhaps one exception, literally every person you cite was a co-worker of Rothbard at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which formed a walled garden of Wikipedia articles in which most to all of the "reliable secondary sources", are from other Mises scholars/friends/coworkers (or at least were before I and other NPOV editors came on the scene). I would also add that most are not economists and described themselves as close personal friends of Rothbard. Please try to find independent secondary sources. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are you misreading the essay Walled Garden, worse you are taking it as policy and misusing it. This is particularly obnoxious when you remove academic material like the Sage Publication article on revisionism and replace it with Raimondo who you obviously think is part of the walled garden. The essay will have to make it clear that this kind of abuse cannot be allowed to continue. User:Carolmooredc 06:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't know how much of a giant he was, which is why I rely on reliable sources, which I have a bunch of and hopefully if there isn't too much nonsense to deal with the next couple days I'll get some good opinions in there. Of course Binksternet does allude to the fact that about the only WP:RS critic you've come up with is Bryan Caplan, hardly a giant in anyone's book. I would think there'd be lots of them. Will keep my eyes open in my travel. Meanwhile, remember all the WP:OR cherry picked quote stuff is going to go at some point if secondary refs aren't found, starting with the more obnoxious stuff. So get busy doing some research yourself. User:Carolmooredc 06:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Literally" every person on my list is an expert on Rothbard's career. "Literally" every person on my list is a notable scholar (somebody should write the Modugno biography.) "Literally" every person on my list has written about Rothbard in books that are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia's eyes. It does not matter in the least whether these people are all in the same faction of economic thought. If you don't like how successful the Mises Institute is in reaching out to the public with their scholarship, too bad. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bink, rather than get sidetracked here, I encourage you to use your references to add a meaty section on Rothbard's contributions to economic research, theory, and policy. Then we will have specific content/citations to add to the article and to discuss. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion—an option I have been contemplating. The frustrating thing is that you are equally capable of adding such text to this article, but instead you reduce it. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be proper for an editor to reduce content of that sort. I have not done so and unless you care to cite diffs it's really not appropriate for you to state that I have done so. Let's get back to improving the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have been working last couple days through all my notes and screen shots to put something together and will add couple refs Binksternet mentioned, so if you get there after me, feel free to play with it. In this article I don't remember Specifico removing too much properly sourced info, just the info box and perhaps a few too many primary sourced sentences without putting a "primary source" on it first. However, One can always do a "compare" shot to see everything that was removed and later find refs for anything important that needs to be put back. I see some primary sourced material from some of his sillier screeds I'm going to tag briefly and then take out at some point myself. User:Carolmooredc 20:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conceding my point. We'll all look forward to whatever contributions you propose. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking back, including at this talk page, I remembered a few things I complained about, so striking comment. User:Carolmooredc 21:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would restore the original with strikethrough for clarity. Thank you for acknowledging my point. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't have to put back something that no on responded to. But I will say that I find your constantly saying to me "you concede my point" to be condescending, not to mention untrue two, and then three, of the times you said it. But let's not waste time debating the point. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 04:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without the strikethrough original text, the post is unintelligible to anyone who didn't read the text before you removed it. Up to you of course. SPECIFICO talk 04:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting around to asking about this (if I did before can't find in mass of text above. At this diff User:Specifico puts in a "synth" tag with comment The block quote has nothing to do with Rothbard's use of Pareto et al. Needs editor attention. I don't See Pareto mentioned in this sentence: "In an obituary for his friend historical revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes, Rothbard explained why historical knowledge is important, followed by what looks like a relevant Rothbard quote about entry into WWII. Maybe it is synth, but I think we need a more policy-based explanation of the problem. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 01:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no explanation, I'll assume you are conceding my point and remove it. User:Carolmooredc 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not normally necessary to give a pronunciation for the name of an English speaker on English Wikipedia unless there is some obvious possible misunderstanding. Furthermore the pronunciation someone has put here seems a bit eccentric to me, both in English and in German (the "o" and the "a" in Rothbard having the same pronunciation and the r being pronounced as a simple r like in red). Is there any reason to think this is needed. I am going to be bold and delete it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this advice can be helpful. I am seeing footnotes like this "[26]:167–168". I presume that the numbers 167-168 are page numbers, but this is really not a good format. An alternative is this:

• In the bibliography, standardize all the references using our citation template. So [''[[Man, Economy, and State]]'', D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962; [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Full text reprint] of second edition (Scholar's Edition), Mises Institute, 2004, ISBN 0-945466-30-7 can become {{citation|last=Rothbard|title=Man, Economy, and State| publisher=D. Van Nostrand Co. |year=1962 |url=http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp | isbn=0945466307| edition=2nd}} or something similar. This will create a link that becomes handy...
• In the footnote text now use the harvcoltxt template, so that ''[[Man, Economy, and State]]'', D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962; [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Full text reprint] of second edition (Scholar's Edition), Mises Institute, 2004, ISBN 0-945466-30-7 becomes {{harvcoltxt|Rothbard|1962}}.
• Place the page numbers within the footnote, not in superscript within the body of the article. This can be done within the template or outside it: {{harvcoltxt|Rothbard|1962|167-168}} or simply {{harvcoltxt|Rothbard|1962}}, pp.167-168, or similar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Ref_name#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once Among other things which people can study it says: Names for footnotes and groups must follow these rules: ... Names may not be purely numeric ...

Obviously it is very confusing to have all numeric ref names like Ref name=06 or Ref name-017 mean. If whoever did them chooses not to change it, I or others will do so soon. User:Carolmooredc 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{rp}} is an acceptable tool for specifying pages in footnotes on sources that are used multiple times. We see it described further at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states:

"He believed that, if there were a 100% reserve requirement and no central bank, privately issued gold-backed monies would predominate."

The premise, "if there were a 100% reserve requirement" is inconsistent with a regime of no government regulation of money and banking. This needs to be investigated in the sources and a clearer statement of Rothbard's view inserted. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Huerta de Soto, I get the impression they mean fractional reserve by a private bank is defacto fraud which private law companies could enforce (if they also defined it that way, of course, which Huerta de Soto thinks they should). However, I'm pretty sure Rothbard also has talked about free market money, so he could both hold personal view on fraud, while not assuming all will hold it. Has to be researched, but I'm on vacation out of this town this week so just will be checking in here and there. Will be back full energy after 19th or so. User:Carolmooredc 14:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously since the outside editor closed it with no consensus, there's no consensus to rush and change from economist first or economist info box. There are lots of people whose main occupation was one thing but are as or even better known for something else. Main occupation usually comes first. I see User:Specifico's late note in the RfC about Casey's biography's opinion on what he's best known for. Fine, that's his opinion. But it doesn't change fact Rothbard was an economist. As I've said before, it looks like 30 pages of David Gordon's The Essential Rothbard] lists Rothbard's economic achievements - but I didn't see any easy 1 page summary (though I'll look again and read whole thing). Another test is did he influence a lot of people economically? Obviously he did. But if we could spend more time researching in an NPOV way and less time debating POVs it sure would help get this article improved :-) But I won't be doing much this week. Even Wikipedia let's us take little vacations.... User:Carolmooredc 14:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard has influenced the scientific views of many regarding physics (cosmology) and psychology. Does this make him a notable scientist? Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to share your biases and prejudices openly so no one will mistake you for having a neutral point of view. User:Carolmooredc 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way it reads right now, it seems to imply that Rothbard's difficulty with Dorfman came from being on the political right. Is that correct? MilesMoney (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From reading a separate account, which I'm not sure would be RS, there are hints that Rothbard failed to satisfy the department requirements or qualifying exams in macroeconomics or monetary theory. There are other sources, however. The Flood source which I cited on MR's early education says of Rothbard, "His inability to please (then-Professor, later Federal Reserve Chairman) Arthur Burns ground his academic pace virtually to a virtual halt. It would be ten years from the awarding of his Masters degree before Columbia would grant him his doctorate. Burns, who lived in the same building as Rothbard, had told Joseph Dorfman, Murray’s revered doctoral advisor, that “(Burns) expected much more from Rothbard.” Calling on Murray one day, JoAnn found him sobbing at the doorstep to his building, devastated by what he had heard." Burns and Dorfman were apolitical and certainly not left of center in their scholarship, which was solidly mainstream/institutionalist. Columbia had been the center of US scholarship on business cycles since the days of Prof. Wesley Clair Mitchell and the founding of the NBER there. Both Dorfman and Burns were recognized for their work on economic history and institutions with respect to business cycles, the topic of Rothbard's dissertation. As to what happened, there is this comment in Arthur Burns' WP article. You might pursue that citation and the Burns volume on which it comments. Good luck.

=== Columbia University ===
In 1945, Burns became a professor at Columbia University. He was promoted to the John Bates Clark professor of economics more than a decade later, in 1959.

At Columbia, he blocked the acceptance of Murray    Rothbard's thesis on the Panic of 1819, despite having known Rothbard since the latter was a child.

[1]

The relevant portion of French's piece on the Mises site says, "Burns had been plucked from the faculty at Columbia University by Dwight D. Eisenhower to be chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. This appointment launched Burns's career in government and fortunately cleared the way for the acceptance of Murray Rothbard's PhD thesis The Panic of 1819, which Burns had blocked, despite having known Rothbard since he was a child and being asked by David Rothbard to look out for his son."

SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at merging in some of the stuff about Burns. Still not happy about how Rothbard's irrelevant line about being surrounded by lefties makes it sound as if he's blaming them for his PhD's delay, though. MilesMoney (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Miles makes a fair point. We ought to find RS that clarify why it took the extraordinary timespan of 11 years for Rothbard to complete his Ph.D. I expect that an inability or unwillingness to meet the required academic standards, as opposed to a conspiracy related to his political views, is what held him back. But we should find the truth in any case. Steeletrap (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miles. I see that you added the information about Arthur Burns. I think we still need to mention the "travails with Dorfman" which are mentioned in RS. If you have the time to consider another edit, that would be great. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took a stab at it. Now it mentions both. MilesMoney (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, like many which relate to the American libertarian movement, is sourced largely to materials which are easily located online. In fact, many of the web links in the references still contain vestiges of internet searches, for example "rothbard economist" :).

There's an inherent problem in researching a topic such as Rothbard using this easy but biased method of search. There is little public interest in Rothbard, so the materials, old and new, which have been preserved or published on the web are available because they have been selected by those most interested in the subject. These tend to be his followers, supporters, and admirers. The easily retrieved sources are not neutral. There is inherent survivorship bias.

In order to fulfill our mandate to present NPOV complete articles, it is critical to search beyond the fast and easy googling. We need to examine contemporaneous reliable sources which appeared in printed form but were never archived on the web. The interesting matter as to Rothbard's relationship with mainstream academia is fundamental to presentation of his life and career. It is unusual for a Columbia PhD in economics to have had virtually no publications in peer-reviewed academic journals and, having pursued teaching jobs, to have taught only at marginal institutions with no doctoral students. Over the course of Rothbard's adult life, most mainstream universities had a broad spectrum of economic viewpoints represented on their faculties, from Marxists through markets-for-everything theorists. Rothbard's career as what one RS called a "controversialist" rather than an engaged participant in the broad academic discourse of his lifetime is an important fact which needs to be fully researched. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the silliest and most absurd attempt to undermine valid refs I've heard yet; obviously this applies to books.google page numbers. And, FYI, one could always use such a search to find the material and then redo the search in the relevant book to make it more neutral. And I have done it a number of times over the years. Hopefully we won't have to waste hours debating that point, holding up valid research.

Also there it is fine to use sources that might not happen to be on the web, but they must be verifiable someplace and if people request quotes of what you say is in a source you must provide it. User:Carolmooredc 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive reliance on online sources is a common problem across Wikipedia. We should be looking for the best sources, not necessarily the most convenient. The best sources in this case should be books (ideally from academic publishers) and articles in journals or respected magazines. They do not need to be "contemporaneous" -- if anything, a later source is better if it reviews and synthesizes the best scholarship to date. The list you started at Talk:Murray Rothbard#Good secondary sources on Rothbard has the right focus overall, although a few of the sources listed need to be used carefully due to close ties to Rothbard. --RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I find today that just about everything I've ever wanted to look for was online somewhere, though sometimes behind a pay wall. But I encourage looking everywhere that's WP:RS. Also, per your comment on close sources finally removing that excessively positive quote from Hans-Hermann Hoppe who actually was a close colleague at a University, as opposed to a loose associate from the same Institute or article publishing site. User:Carolmooredc 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it's the Mises Institute affiliates that are the more problematic. Rothbard was the head of the academic program at Mises and was the one directly in charge of hiring and firing the "Fellows" "Scholars" "Faculty" and others who received stipends from the Institute. Hoppe was merely a colleague under the joint employ of the State University of Nevada, Las Vegas. This isn't about warm feelings or comraderie. It's about self-interest. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong about Rothbard having a strange career, but it's probably better if you can point to sources that noticed what you noticed. MilesMoney (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppe is a notable observer of Rothbard's life. He and the Mises Institute people are certainly going to remain reliable sources. I see this thread as another attempt to diminish the Mises influence on this article, because the Mises people are very pro-active in putting texts online. To be certain, WP:RS allows us to use all high quality sources without regard to whether they are online or not. I encourage any editor here to find the best Rothbard sources on- or off-line, but I do not think we should discount online sources for any reason. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get back on topic, it's very important to deal appropriately with survivorship bias. The cure for survivorship bias of online source-hunting is not to do more or different kinds of googling. Instead, we need to search elsewhere for the RS information which has not been archived online. For example we should locate printed criticism which, in hindsight, may be viewed as the refutation of theories, opinions, or assertions which were subsequently ignored by the mainstream and not resurrected by the minority who rejected these RS evaluations. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that offline sources might be good ones, feel free to use them. There's no need to try and counter your suggested survivor bias in any other way than hunting for good offline sources. We do not need to discount or dismiss online sources simply because they are online. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an irony about considering survivorship bias when we evaluate RS. To a great extent, mainstream thought exists because it "survives" better than others, whether it deserves to or not. And then we have editors with confirmation bias. Of course we add material that we like – indeed, how often do editors undertake an Ideological Turing Test when we make our contributions? So mainstream thought survives in its realm and heterodox thought survives in its. – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2 threads here. One is about survivorship bias with respect to web publication of old documents. The other is about a straw-man suggestion to use web publication as a factor in determining whether a reference is RS for Wikipedia. The second thread is off-topic and if any editor wishes to continue, that should be done in a separate thread. A careful review of the survivorship bias link in the section title should clarify the issue for those who are otherwise not familiar with it. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I am seeing is this: How are you proposing to "deal appropriately with survivorship bias"? To me, it seems to be a private problem, one to be addressed by individuals as they hunt down references. Yet you are bringing it up in a public forum, which causes me to wonder in what fashion you propose to "deal appropriately" with this issue. It cannot be in the form of a diminution of surviving references to the advantage of little known ones. It can only be in the form of article expansion using the more rare references, with proper WP:WEIGHT. The question of proper weight goes directly against survivorship bias. Note that WEIGHT is a Wikipedia policy, part of the Neutral Point of View policy, but survivorship bias is not. There is no direction given by Wikipedia to counter such bias. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, please re-read my text from which you cherrypicked a question and you will see my thoughts on the matter you address above. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is a personal decision to make: how to research the topic. And WEIGHT still applies. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who has said otherwise? That is not a rhetorical question. You seem to raise straw-man arguments which distract and confuse the community here. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you are distracted and confused; that was not my intent. Regarding survivorship bias, there is little to do here regarding notional references that have slipped through the cracks. This thread has no actionable points. At best it is a waste of time relative to WEIGHT; at worst it is another attempt to diminish the influence of the Mises Institute which holds a great deal of reference material quickly and easily available online. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to raise a general concern about the handling of Rothbard's views. I notice that the section covering this contains no general overview of major themes in his ideas. Instead it immediately plunges into a series of subsections on specific topics -- some of them very specific. I have seen this happen in other articles, and it is often a case of undue weight being given to particular items because individual editors consider them important. We are supposed to be summarizing the perspectives of reliable secondary sources, not cherry-picking items we find personally interesting/laudable/scandalous. If thousands of pages have been written about a person (call him John Doe), and Doe's specific view on a topic (say, gardening) is only discussed in the equivalent of two or three pages, then the John Doe article should not have a subsection on gardening that takes up 10% of the prose. I am not a strong expert on Rothbard in particular, so maybe all the topics mentioned are prominent issues in the literature? Anarcho-capitalism and non-interventionism seem to be featured points in almost everything I've read about him, for example. On the other hand, I can't say that I knew his views on historical revisionism or children's rights before looking at this article. IF these are the equivalent of Doe's views on gardening, then they should be accounted for much more briefly. Sometimes a single sentence can cover a low-prominence topic: "Doe's unusual views included the belief that flower gardens should mandatory in every home, a demand that his colleague Jane Smith criticized as unrealistic." (If it turns out that an editor is riding a WP:OR hobby horse or mining marginal "RS" sources such as opinion columns in local newspapers, the topic might be omitted entirely.) So, I'm not trying to stake out any firm position on the specific topics, but I do have reservations about the current content. Feedback from those more knowledgeable of the literature is appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what set Rothbard apart was his uncompromising willingness to carry his individualist/free market thinking through to its ultimate conclusions. Many economists or social theorists discuss similar issues but start from the premise that the familiar social and political institutions of Western government currently serve worthwhile purposes. That view is, for example, the dominant view held by 20th and 21st Century Austrian School economists (Hayek, Kirzner, Machlup and carious Cato Institute scholars, for example. Rothbard, on the other hand, entirely abandoned that premise and examined various topics de novo from a purely deductive point of view. As a result, Rothbard arrived at various conclusions which were otherwise not set forth in such a clear manner. The significance of these conclusions is not that they are scandalous or shocking, but merely that they are essential to Rothbard's approach, his life, and his thought. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is this how you would describe the interpretations in the literature, or just your own view? What I'm trying to get at is that we should look for how secondary sources handle Rothbard's views, and write the viewpoints section with those in mind. If, for example, children's rights is a big standalone theme in the secondary sources, with lots of articles or book chapters about that one thing, then by all means have a subsection on that. On the other hand, if the major interpretive theme in the literature is "Rothbard was willing to reject previous assumptions and follow his deductions wherever they led", and children's rights is occasionally mentioned as one of many examples, then that detailed topic should be subordinated to an example within the larger theme. (Let me emphasize: if; not trying to say this is the specific thing that should be done now.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been difficult to find independent RS discussions of Rothbard's work. He is the godfather of a certain strain of thinking but is almost entirely ignored among mainstream or academic publications. From what I can tell, there are no ready solutions to the questions you raise. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RL, this confuses me. The "children's rights" bit is discussed and criticized at length by RS, and the "historical revisionism" stuff (in addition to being discussed by RS) was by Rothbard's own admission seminal to his thought. Therefore I don't understand how the inclusion is "cherrypicked" or biased. Steeletrap (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have been very clear that I am offering examples of things that I wonder about, not claiming that a specific passage is biased. If you are saying that the literature about Rothbard discusses these issues frequently and prominently -- for example, if reading almost any secondary source book giving an overview of his ideas, I would find a substantial discussion of historical revisionism and a substantial discussion of children's rights -- then so be it. On the other hand, if you are just saying that some reliable sources exist, then I don't think you are understanding what the question of due weight is about. The question is not, "Is there any basis for mentioning these issues at all?" Rather it is, "Are we emphasizing the things that secondary sources usually emphasize about him?" There might be a reliable source for how tall he was, or what kind of pets he owned, but if these are not prominent aspects of his persona, then we would not want a prominent discussion of them in the article. Are we treating these issues in proportion to their prominence? That's the question. And it is a question I'm asking, not a demand for something specific to be added or removed. --RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] Thank you for the clarification, RL. I appreciate your concerns and your efforts to improve this article. Though WP:Undue should be used to evaluate all content in the article, I do think the problem is more salient in the numerous (and generally positive) content from fringe or primary sources connected to Rothbard, as opposed to that added from independent RS. Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud RL's effort to gain some objectivity relative to Rothbard's career. It's important to locate some secondary and even tertiary references which provide an overview, something we can use to gauge WP:WEIGHT. What's next is to list such sources here. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SPECIFICO's concerns, it should be noted that the RS from Politics, Philosophy and Economics journal (for some info on the journal, see: 1) I cited is one of the most credible sources in this entire article. Incidentally, the only reason such a journal discussed Rothbard's "children's theory" is that the RS academic who publishes with that journal used to be a Mises Scholar, and now vocally and emphatically speaks out against it, labeling it a "cult." That we need to search out for self described "ex-cultists" who have abandoned "the Institute" to discover critical RS evaluations of Rothbard's work (as opposed to fan-club style praise) speaks to the extent of the walled garden problem in the Rothbard and other Mises Institute-related articles. Steeletrap (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point, on topic. I stand corrected. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:RL0919 - You are right that for years people have been cherry picking, mostly from primary sources, both their favorite issues and/or things that they think make Rothbard look bad. And of course there are sources that do what you propose. I've gotten pretty sick of such sources, no matter how far removed from Rothbard, being gutted and/or removed while garbage like a National Review guilt by association screed is thrown in there. I don't have 5 hours a day to argue for putting in good material and taking out low quality material. However, I am glad to see that a few other editors are taking note and perhaps if I feel they are willing to put up the good fight [added later because of sensitivities: "debate"] I'll come back next week and try again... Coming off vacation and working on far more fulfilling own projects this week. User:Carolmooredc 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that for years people have been cherry picking, mostly from primary sources, both their favorite issues and/or things that they think make Rothbard look bad.

Please see WP:AGF.

perhaps if I feel they are willing to put up the good fight I'll come back next week and try again...

Please see WP:BATTLE. — goethean 22:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Why can one say that the article is a walled garden where supporters haven't put in any negative material from outside the garden, but one can't say that over the (4 or 5 years i've watched this article) some editors put in favorite issues and/or things that they think make Rothbard look bad. User:Carolmooredc 00:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srich32977 has attempted (see: 1) to delete several substantive paragraphs, sourced by top-flight RS, regarding Rothbard's support for the parental "right" to let their children starve to death/die. His mass content deletion is grounded in the view that Rothbard only supports the "right" to allow one's children to starve to death in the case of euthanasia.

That Rich's view is entirely erroneous can be seen from the quoted passage in the wiki entry and more importantly, the interpretation of Rothbard's remarks from the cited peer reviewed RS from the well-regarded Politics, Philosophy and Economics journal. It can also be seen through a number of other unequivocal statements by Rothbard in the same book, such as: "[a] parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights" (2)

The basis for Rich's insinuation is a single footnote (3) of Rothbard's following one of his many sentences on the right to let children die. "The" footnote reads "On the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, see Philippa R. Foot, Virtues and Vices". In light of his clear-cut and copious remarks on this matter and the RS interpretation from a highly regarded mainstream journal, is preposterous to claim that this one footnote, which simply seeks to draw a conceptual distinction (and does not endorse any particular view regarding euthanasia), demonstrates that Rothbard only supports the right to let the kids die under the extremely rare and limited circumstance of euthanasia (as we conceive of and define the term). Steeletrap (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rothbard paragraph continued from the original edit (by Steeletrap) and contained three footnotes, two of which explicitly dealt with euthanasia. Here they are:

[5]Cf. the view of the individualist anarchist theorist Benjamin R. Tucker: “Under equal freedom, as it [the child] develops individuality and independence, it is entitled to immunity from assault or invasion, and that is all. If the parent neglects to support it, he does not thereby oblige anyone else to support it.” Benjamin R. Tucker, Instead of a Book (New York: B.R. Tucker, 1893), p. 144.
[6]The original program of the Euthanasia Society of America included the right of parents to allow monstrous babies to die. It has also been a common and growing practice for midwives and obstetricians to allow monstrous babies to die at birth by simply not taking positive acts to keep them alive. See John A. Robertson, “Involuntary Euthanasia of Defective Newborns: A Legal Analysis,” Stanford Law Review (January 1975): 214–15.

Did the partial paragraph, out of the entire chapter, attempt to capture the overall theme of Rothbard's thought on this subject? Or was it the result of marginal mining of RS sources? – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add additional content to better contextualize the discussion. That is encouraged. What are not encouraged (and indeed, discouraged) are mass deletions of reliably-sourced material, or spurious attempts to combat the RS (and common-sense) interpretation of Rothbard's support for the general right to let children starve to death. Steeletrap (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the material, and I noted where you omitted footnotes. Your comment (above) that my justification was limited to a single footnote was made after I included the full paragraph. What is to be encouraged is User:RL0919's admonition that we "capture the overall themes" and avoid "marginal mining...". – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not constructive to suggest that editor Steeletrap was not attempting to write an accurate representation of the cited source or was "marginal mining" the meaning of which is obscure but which the context suggests is your aspersion on Steeletrap's good faith here. Please discuss content not editors. There is nothing to prevent you, Srich, from better capturing the overall theme by adding additional RS material to the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one objects to adding the footnotes. Please add them to the article so we can put this issue to rest (and so we can delete the ugly and distracting "footnotes omitted" notices). Add the literal footnotes, with no OR, and our readers can determine for themselves whether they imply the peer-reviewed RS journal article (written by a Rothbard scholar) is wrong in its interpretation. Steeletrap (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that my "omission" of the footnotes stemmed from my quoting from a reproduction of Rothbard's quote in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, which itself omitted the footnotes, presumably for the (obvious) reason that they have only tangential importance for the matter at hand. Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this edit is wrong and should be reverted. Wikipedia simply does not add in fake footnote numbers in order to more precisely reproduce quoted text. No offense intended, but this is a crazy idea. People don't do this when writing term papers, either. — goethean 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes are not fake. MOS:QUOTE says the wording of quoted text should faithfully reproduce what was written. The fact that Rothbard was talking about euthanasia is critical. – S. Rich (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested comment here. — goethean 14:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superscripted numerals which refer to nothing in the Wikipdia article are unhelpful to the reader, and I find it extremely bizarre that you can't grasp this. — goethean 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had included "^{[4 (footnote omitted)]}" at each of the missing footnotes, but other editors did not like the idea. The original posting did not mention the fact that Rothbard was talking about euthanasia and presented a version that simply said he was advocating the right of parents to starve their children for whatever reason. More work needs to be done to present this material. Indeed, the question as to whether this small piece about Rothbard serves well to describe his overall contributions is under debate. – S. Rich (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Rothbard published he quoted text under his name. You need to allow him to take responsibility for his own freely published words. Some material was omitted by an ellipsis. Let's restore that material, and beyond that, I'm having a really hard time understanding why we cannot take Rothbard's words at face value. — goethean 14:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that including the footnote numbers from the original is not necessary or helpful, and it isn't standard practice for quoting. This whole business about whether the secondary source misrepresented Rothbard sounds like original research to me. If there is a different secondary source that discusses the first one and says it misrepresents him, then maybe use that instead. Or maybe the entire topic is being over-inflated and should be trimmed down. Why, for example, do we even need a block quote about this? An encyclopedia article ought to describe important controversies about the subject, but it doesn't need to play them out in detail. (Assuming, arguendo, that this is an important controversy, as per my questions about due weight in the section above.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually agree with that, but this is such a thorny and controverial issue that I think that everyone would be more comfortable quoting the author directly. Any summary will omit some nuances, and that will result in disagreement. — goethean 15:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just User:Srich32977 OR, that because Rothbard mentions euthanasia in footnotes after some of these sentences, that his theory must *only* apply in those cases despite Rothbard's clear language to the contrary. And he has the gall to imply I'm biased for supporting the RS and common-sense interpretation! Steeletrap (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the lead in to the quote to this after a complaint about his advocating allowing parents to murder their children—"Applying his conception of property rights and self-ownership, Rothbard argued in The Ethics of Liberty against forcing parents to feed their children."—but it was almost immediately changed again to talk of passive killing etc., which is not accurate. I'm a socialist, I've no axe to grind here. Why was my lead into the quote changed? Can someone explain what was wrong with it? All the quoted passage that we are discussing says is that he is against forcing parents to feed their children. That obviously doesn't means he advocates parents not doing so, or that he believes parents should be allowed to starve their kids to death (which would imply he advocates parents being allowed to prevent others from feeding their children, which by simple point of logic, his logic, he would be against). LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your restoration of the Rothbard text as cited by the RS Callahan article, has been reverted and distorted by various editors since then. The removal of RS text has been raised by the editor who originally cited the complete Callahan discussion. See here: [6]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) [User:SPECIFICO]????

I see. Thanks. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reduced passage

I agree with RL's concern that, for both stylistic and substantive reasons, this discussion could be cut down. (Though since it is addressed by one of the highest quality RS in the article, I would strenuously object to deletion.) I think the below primary source quotation of Rothbard would cover the essentials, in noting his absolute support for the right to let "any" child starve, while also noting that he believes this will be quite rare in a free society. We would retain the secondary RS's response to these remarks (which are part of the broader quote it is responding too). The footnotes would be omitted because they are not particularly informative as to this discussion (and simply do not, as a matter of logic, say what User:Srich32977 says they do in his OR argument). should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any [bold mine --- steele] baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum. Steeletrap (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "proposal" obscures and misrepresents the thread of Rothbard's argument and its basis in his fundamental principles. Moreover it introduces a teleological moral stance which is inimical to Rothbard's explicit rejection of utilitarian ethics. This isn't really a negotiation. Editor Steeletrap, you introduced a well-sourced bit of text which in my opinion was the minimal and most compact writing sufficient to represent the source. It should stand on its undeniable merits. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] I disagree, SPECIFICO. I appreciate your concern on the question of Rothbard's ethics, which are "anti-utilitarian" to the core. But while "natural law" (a term he never specifically defines, but apparently equates to the "non-aggression principle" of pop novelist Ayn Rand) does for Rothbard always trump all moral considerations, it does not follow from this that he regards bad consequences/human suffering to be irrelevant factors. It is possible that Rothbard regards the starvation of children to be immoral, even if this unfortunate practice does not justify government "coercion" of the parent (i.e. violation of the Ayn Rand principle). Therefore I see nothing wrong with including his speculation that child starvation would (owing to the "free market for babies") be at a "minimum" in the free society, even if it is relatively unimportant compared to the far more fundamental moral question of always upholding the Ayn Rand natural law principle. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Reducing the length of the block quote is definitely a step in the right direction, and this reduced version does seem to capture the key points of the longer version. It don't see how it "introduces" anything. Not sure what "This isn't really a negotiation" is supposed to mean, but building consensus among editors is part of what Talk pages are for. (I assume the bolding is just for discussion purposes here, not something to go in the article. We should not be adding emphasis to quotes in articles -- that's a POV minefield for sure.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a negotiation" means we should not compromise the content or clarity of the article to accommodate an unsupported insistence on a spurious issue concerning the footnotes. As to the content, I believe that those who have read Rothbard's work in their breadth will recognize that the argument he weaves in this matter is highly typical and characteristic of his thinking. Without Rothbard's unswerving deductive inquiry, one would not fully understand the issue nor arrive at his stated conclusion. Therefor it is clear to me that any truncation of Rothbard's thread of reasoning must be rejected in this case. "Negotiation" in that sense, is surrender to misrepresenting Rothbard's thought. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard's Chapter 14 goes on to decry various violations of civil rights and liberties of children. (Indeed, much more of the chapter discusses this aspect of children's rights.) How do we incorporate this aspect of Rothbard's views into the article? I should hope some secondary sources discuss. – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC

[Insert] I don't understand how you came to think that editors who disagree with your fallacious footnote argument are somehow seeking to "blackwash" (your term) this article. If you can find RS discussion of Rothbard (preferably not from walled garden articles written in fringe journals Rothbard personally founded) on children, please add it. I do ask that you cease to engage in mass-deletion or undermining of high-quality RS interpretation of Rothbard, based on your (uncompelling, per the remarks of peers of all ideologies) OR footnote thing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just stand there, do it. But unless you have specific content and policy based concerns, please do not block the addition of other important content. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I should start a different thread for this or not, but here I go. The article says: "defended the general right of parents to let "any" child die by passive means such as starvation". Where does one have any credible source for that? Rothbard does not defend the right of parents to let children die. He defends the fact that the parent has no obligation towards the child. If any one in society wishes to feed the children it would be perfectly permissible under Rothbardian ethics. Furthermore, he states that if the parent does not wish to feed the child he should announce that publicly, and only if no one else wishes to feed the child, the child would die. Saying it is not your obligation to feed/save the poor is not the same as saying you have a right to let the poor die. -- Fsol (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Fsol. I think you may be getting into OR territory with your interpretation. How would any 3rd party know the child was starving? Would Rothbard allow strangers to trespass in the home of the parents to feed the child? What if they left a mess on the floor? etc etc. I'm not sure what the word "any" adds to the discussion. If I say that I have the right to piss in the park, do I have to say "any" park? Not clear. I think that Rothbard's contribution, as noted by Gene Callahan, is to attempt to derive a moral code from the single self-ownership principle. As Callahan notes in his article, Rothbard's approach is a radical departure from the tradition of Western thought which views the social contract and the legal systems to which it gives legitimacy, as a set of compromises among multiple values and principles which are fundamentally in conflict. At any rate, since Rothbard does not introduce the "any" issue, I think that is OR for our purposes and does not appear to be discussed by secondary RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The territory of original research is indeed a problem with this passage. We should not include anything about child starvation for reasons of euthanasia unless this issue is discussed by third party observers. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Rothbard doesn't need Wikipedia editors to save him from the clear, straight-forward meaning of his voluntarily published words. Attempting to defend Rothbard from the clear meaning of his own words is a violation of WP:OR. — goethean 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to "save" anybody. All we're saying is that if you have the right not to feed me it doesn't mean you have to right to make me starve. If Rothbard said "the general right of parents to let "any" child die by passive means such as starvation", then we should have a source for that, not a personal interpretation of his work.

Specifico, to answer your questions, the parents have to announce the fact that they do not intend to take care of their child. Otherwise, he argued, their case is akin to setting a trap for a guest. So the parents may chose not feed the child, but for the child to starve, everybody in society also has to chose not to feed the child. -- Fsol (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am sorry if I left the wrong impression that I was picking on the word "any". I am not. The only reason it is placed within quotation marks is because that is the way in which it appeared in the article. -- Fsol (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Callahan's article is prime RS peer-reviewed refereed article in a respected academic journal. The Rothbard text was selected and cited by Callahan. The what-if's, modulations, mitigations, and modifications are not present in Callahan nor in the Rothbard text he cites. You and Bink have both removed validly sourced content, which should be restored while this discussion is underway. Rothbard opposed coercion/aggression by the baby if the baby were deemed to have a right to be fed by the parents. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's implied by the non-aggression principle. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard does not advocate the torture of petty criminals by police; he holds that the harm done to the criminal suspect by the state should not exceed the harm that the criminal has done. If we say his libertarian beliefs include torture of criminals then we should not imply this means all criminals. In his own writing he gives 'murderer' as an example. We also should limit the example to murder suspects. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. We should not say that Rothbard only supports torture in the case of murder, because this is not in the text. If I say "I don't hate petty criminals, but I hate felons" and offer murderers as an example, that does not mean I only hate murderers. #logicmatters Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To that point, Rothbard states that he approves the aggression by police because it is payment in kind for the aggression of the criminal (subject to the police correctly guessing whodunnit per Rothbard.) Thus Rothbard's principle is that aggressors should not be protected from aggression. He doesn't go into any of the finer points of implementation (which is perhaps covered by the implied risk police take if they're later discovered to have tortured a suspect who is acquitted of all charges.) Using murder as an example does not limit the discussion to murder. Otherwise Rothbard, an able and articulate wordsmith, would have used the word murder for crime and murderer for suspect throughout. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we are wandering away from the text. The words "beat" and "torture" appear four times, but they do not appear in connection with just any criminal. Rothbard says the following in his Chapter Twelve. I have added bolding for emphasis:

• "For any physical force used against a non-criminal is an invasion of that innocent person’s rights, and is therefore itself criminal and impermissible. Take, for example, the police practice of beating and torturing suspects—or, at least, of tapping their wires."
• "Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information... But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man..."
• "As a corollary, police can never be allowed to commit an invasion that is worse than, or that is more than proportionate to, the crime under investigation. Thus, the police can never be allowed to beat and torture someone charged with petty theft, since the beating is far more proportionate a violation of a man's rights than the theft, even if the man is indeed the thief."

The proportionate aspect must be honored. It would be wrong to give the reader the impression that the beating and torturing of a suspect was okayed by Rothbard even for petty crimes. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People are surprised that CATO, which like them or not is today associated with some scholars who do serious work, used to be intimately associated with Murray. But back in the day, CATO was widely regarded as a crackpot fringe group, and housed scholars who were contemptuous of wicked "deviationists" like "Mister Negative Income tax" Milton Friedman. It was entirely devoted to promoting Murray's "deductive" and evidence-free approach to economics, and also championed the broader vision of this instructor of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic. As David Gordon writes: "Someone acquainted only with these facts would never suspect that Rothbard was a principal founder of Cato and that the organization had been established to promote his distinctive variety of libertarianism." (1)

As David Gordon notes (in the article cited above), the "break" between Murray and CATO started over the hiring of economist David Henderson, who used evidence in his models. Murray was predictably infuriated by the hiring. As Gordon ominously observes, "to hire a non-Austrian was hardly in keeping with the original mission of Cato". Murray's inability to produce anything after years of promising to write a book on his philosophy, and receiving CATO grant money for his work (which ended up becoming The Ethics of Liberty), also played a role in the dispute.

Henderson's hiring marked the beginning of dark times at CATO. Corrupted by the evidence based models, Cato now on Gordon's account "has no longer supported the abolition of the Fed" and their new aim "is to influence policy in Washington". They also have "shunned and defamed" defenders of the gold standard. Understandably, Murray was soon out the door.

Someone with the inclination to read through the entire soap opera should do the research and make a sub-section describing his relationship with the CATO Institute, perhaps under "political activism". The place to start is David Gordon's "The Kochtopus vs Murray N. Rothbard", which has two parts (1) (2). Steeletrap (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this diff I did a better summary of what Rothbard said and removed the prejudicial and WP:OR sentence As a means to this end, he regarded the study of similarities and differences between different ethnic groups—what he termed "racialist science"—as "an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." Of course what Rothbard was referring to in that sentence was a group of scientists studying race, not some specific racialist (synonym for "racist") scientific view. (In other words, had other scientists come up with more relevant statistics about material nutrition, lead poisoning in lower income housing, and poor education, he inferred as a scientifically minded person he'd have to look at those scientific facts.) Sure, it takes a little more explanation to do it right. Considering that there wasn't any secondary source calling this article notable, let's not turn his enthusiastic review of a NY Times review into the inference of some hardcore racialist viewpoint. User:Carolmooredc 21:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of races, in the sense that we mean for protected minorities, is not biological, it's sociological. There is no racialist science that isn't racist. MilesMoney (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert: That may be true, but we can't assert it on wikipedia without a secondary source. Otherwise it's WP:OR.]User:Carolmooredc 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is flat wrong. It says "racialist science" right in the text of the section. And yet CarolMooreDC removes "racialism" from the header, claiming that the word is never mentioned! The word should go back into the header, as the section quotes Rothbard discussing how racialist science is important to his property-based anti-egalitarian politics! Bizarre behavior. — goethean 22:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. MilesMoney (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Racialist science" in quotes does properly reflect what he wrote. Is it WP:Undue to put one phrase in a section header, I mean if one is trying to write an NPOV article? That is the question. User:Carolmooredc 00:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some serious concerns with the reliability and accuracy of OP's editing and edit summaries, in this and other WP articles. OP claimed in her edit summary that the term "racialism" was a misrepresentation of the passage, as this language was "not used by any source." In fact, the term "racialist", which is the adjectival form of "racialism", is repeatedly used by Rothbard in the passage (he also uses "racialism" on one occasion). What on earth are we to do with an editor who, far from actually reading the article, doesn't even bother to take 15 seconds to press "control-F"? to verify edits relating to the use of terms?

OP frets that the passage is non-neutral because it in her judgment implies Rothbard is a racist. This concern reflects OP's fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that accurately describing an author's controversial views (even if widely regarded as fringe or disreputable) does not constitute a violation but rather an upholding of WP:NPOV. Rothbard endorses "racialist science" and TBC's thesis that blacks are (on the average and owing to genetics not environment) dumber than whites. That's a racist thesis, according to both the dictionary and common-sense understanding of the term. Murray is forthrightly applauding an intellectual defense of racism. (BTW - "Racialism", which I agree is (rather than racism) the term we should use to describe Rothbard's views, is a genteel synonym of racism) (1) (2) (3.

OP also misunderstands the main point of the passage, which is to endorse TBC's thesis, and examine (with enthusiasm) the political and social implications of its being propagated and promoted. When Murray discusses racialism as a "defense against aggressors", he is specifically refers to to an intellectual defense of racial inequality as the product of biology, rather than free market inequities or inefficiencies; the potential aggressor seem to be racial minorities who might favor "coercive" programs like Head Start to redress inequality. The main point of the passage, which currently describes racialism as "defensive" without clarification, and also features a boatload of off-topic cheerleading about how "paleos" favor liberty etc, should be restored in future edits. Steeletrap (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to return the passage to NPOV conforming to the cited references. If the disruptive behavior continues, we can deal with it in the proper forum. I hope that will not be necessary. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steeletrap writes regarding his changes at this diff: "The main point of the passage, which currently describes racialism as "defensive" without clarification..."

The section is called "SO: WHY TALK ABOUT RACE AT ALL?" The first paragraph repeats that message. The second paragraph says, as I neatly summarized it: He wrote that populists and libertarians should not just leave these issues to the scientists because not only were they related to freedom of inquiry and anti-egalitarianism, but "racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors."

Now maybe a more eloquent summary could be written, but his point is clear. Try reading it again. Also, removing the below removes Rothbard's whole reason for writing the essay in the first place, which is just POV:

In 1994, Rothbard wrote about the favorable response to Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve, including by the New York Times science reporter Malcolm W. Browne. He notes that while the Herrnstein-Murray book focused overwhelmingly on inheritable differences within ethnic or racial groups, Browne also treated with respect books by scientists J. Philippe Rushton and Seymour Itzkoff which investigated differences between races. [Rothbard] wrote that this new willingness to discuss these issues... (Note correct where I meant Rothbard.) Obviously, Rothbard was celebrating what he thought was the New York Times science editor agreeing with him.

If you want to infer that Rothbard's a racist or a believer in Racialism (racial categorization) or a believer in some specific version of "racialist science" you at least have to provide more quotes. But that would start getting even more heavily into WP:OR and WP:Synth.

And please do not say that making POV interpretations of primary sources less pov is disruptive. I mean this article is headed to WP:ORN; though who knows if any outside editors will opine. User:Carolmooredc 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have striken the false reference to me above. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So easy to get you two confused, what with the two "S" letter anonymous handles, even when one double checks. (Plus evidently focused on the bold SPECIFICO signature that immediately followed the non-bolded Steeletrap signature.) (Please do not assume more than is stated and remove other's innocent talk page remarks.) User:Carolmooredc 11:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, I struck the false statement about me you made above. The diff was SPECIFICO's, not mine, and I did not comment on it at all, much less "defend" it. SPECIFICO was also right to cross your remarks about her, as the quotation you cited was mine, not hers. So many errors raise concerns of WP:Competence; it's difficult to collaborate with someone whose contributions are grounded in false assertions regarding policy, the conduct of other users, and the statements of RS. Steeletrap (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again an editor cherry picks the most outrageous statement Rothbard has made from a chapter on Self-Defense, and probably cherry picks Callahan’s most negative comment. I don’t have easy access to the article right now so cannot say if that’s one short paragraph out of dozens on other aspects of the book or essay. I guess I’ll have to ask someone at the Wikipedia research desk. “Self-defense and police action” may not be best section header, but at least it’s not an attack section header. User:Carolmooredc 01:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] The consistent inaccuracy and unreliability of your edits undermines your credibility, User:Carolmooredc. The section is not about "self-defense," but punishment theory. The referenced passage is talking specifically about the torture of suspect, not self-defense. You need to verify sources before alleging that they are cherry-picked; they're not. The torture bit is specifically what Callahan mentions (and condemns) about Rothbard's punishment theory. As illustrated here and by your false statements about Murray's article (not) mentioning the word "racialism", you consistently fail to read sources before commenting and making edits based on what you hope they say. Steeletrap (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard isn't talking about punishment theory, but self-defense and then goes off on this tangent about whether cops can torture people (or would they) knowing they'll be criminally prosecuted. Out of context it's absurd; in context it's just questionable speculation. And the section is about whatever we decide to make it, considering that the whole section on his views is a summary of a chapter. Does Gene Callahan actually summarize what he wrote there or just have had two sentences that were both pretty much quoted there. And of course other WP:RS may have other things to say. User:Carolmooredc 03:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you to read the passage. Rothbard is talking about punishment theory in the relevant section of the chapter; he's talking about what the criminal deserves (hence petty criminals can't be tortured, but (for example) murderers can). Also please read the RS. Buy the article and read it instead of speculating about what you hope it says. Steeletrap (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Specifico at this diff reverts my NPOV interpretation writing (Revert OR. This has been resolved at RSN.) What has been resolved, that Callahan can be used with no indication of what he said about what Rothbard thinks? With no quote when an editor asks for it? User:Carolmooredc 02:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:COMPETENT editor who examines the cited RS can see that your statements above are false. You should examine the cited source (Callahan) and the Rothbard text to which he refers and the talk page and RSN postings on this matter. Either you are willfully denying the settled text or you are not competent to edit this section. I strongly suggest you stand back and consider the sources and discussion before continuing to assert your denial. SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make this personal, but Carol's been making some pretty bad mistakes over and over. When I see her edits, I'm going to have to give them a second look because she's wrong a lot about obvious stuff. MilesMoney (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Users:Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and MilesMoney are unaware of Wikipedia:V#cite_note-Courtesy-10 which reads: When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.

This means that if another editor requests a quote in the article text to prove that a source says something it should be supplied as a courtesy. It does not say "only if the source is not available online". And most people can't read Sage articles readily, though I am going to try a couple other venues. As I expressed above, while there is no doubt Callahan is a reliable source, it is unclear if either use of Callahan is just a sentence or two in passing, perhaps with the rest of the material editor WP:OR. I have certainly seen enough creative interpretation of sources lately to wonder. (The abstruse abstractat this Sage link gives no indication.) User:Carolmooredc 11:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I get reverted no matter how clear the explanations in my edit summary, let me point out that at this diff the sentence "Rothbard warned that the mid-East conflict would draw the U.S. into a world war. " was moved from the original source The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America (the page in question having an internet link) to Rothbard's "War Guilt in the Middle East" which doesn't talk about "world war" at all. Searching world and war separately I didn't find any reference to some international conflagration. (Should I search international conflagration as well?) Please explain where this concept was explicitly mentioned or very strongly implied, the only excuse for moving it. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 12:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that Rothbard is not notable as an economist. Others have disagreed, and the page reflects their position, which is fine. But if "economist" is going to be in the lede and used as the first word to describe Rothbard, we need sources describing his contributions to economics. These should be published in mainstream journals, not the Mises Institute journals (which, fringe concerns aside, were personally established by Murray, so COI issues abound). Note however that it would be fine to publish a Rothbard co-worker's article if the article were published in a mainstream, reliable journal.

As the article currently stands, there is virtually nothing relating to Rothbard's contributions to economics (which are distinct from moral opinions on how the economy should be run; value judgments such as "contempt" for John Maynard Keynes are not scientific). I have tried looking and can't find anything other than the Caplan article. However, I expect those who believe he is a notable economist know more about his contributions to economics than I do. Please add these contributions. It looks silly for the page to have 2 sentences about Murray's work as an economist after describing him chiefly an economist in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been scouring the indices of academic journals and other locations where scholarly or economic history content might have been published but not (yet) archived on the web. The results are disappointing. There are various writings of Rothbard which state his opinions, political views and beliefs, in addition to the previously-noted polemics and controversialist writings. I have not found any theoretical or analytic writings in which Rothbard is initiating or commenting on academic work. The scarce comments on Rothbard's economic views, such as the Caplan piece already cited in this article, are rather dismissive and don't point to detailed academic contributions by MR. I will continue to search and I hope that other editors will also search. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating myself:

• Gerard Casey (philosopher) said Rothbard "was widely regarded as the intellectual leader of the younger generation of the Austrian school..." Page 7 of Murray Rothbard, ISBN 9781623563165
• Ralph Raico said Rothbard was "one of the most prominent" among "later Austrian economists, following in Mises's footsteps." Page 45 of Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School, ISBN 9781610165549
• Edward Elgar Publishing writes a blurb to describe their Rothbard book The Logic of Action Two: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School. The description appears online:[7] "Murray N. Rothbard was the leading voice of the Austrian School of Economics during its post-war American revival... The book confirms Rothbard as an intellectual giant, and presents his many contributions to the Austrian School..."
• Randall G. Holcombe edited a book about 15 influential Austrian economists in which Hans-Hermann Hoppe authored a chapter devoted solely to Rothbard: chapter 15. Hoppe said that "Murray N. Rothbard has come to occupy a position of unique influence within the intellectual tradition of Austrian economics... Rothbard is the latest representative of the mainstream within Austrian economics... Rothbard is the main exponent of the main rationalist branch of Austrian School... Rothbard is the latest and most comprehensive system-builder within Austrian economics... Rothbard is the latest and most systematically political Austrian economist... In the area of theoretical economics, Rothbard contributed two major advances beyond standards set by Mises's Human Action." Pages 223–226 of The Great Austrian Economists, ISBN 9781610164399
• In the same Holcombe-edited book as above, Thomas DiLorenzo writes in passing about Rothbard. He says that Frederic Basquiat was "a model of scholarship for those Austrians who believed that general education—especially the kind of economic education that shatters the myriad myths and superstitions created by the state and its intellectual apologists—is an essential function (if not duty) of the economist. Mises was a superb role model in this regard, as were Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard, among other Austrian economists."
• Randall G. Holcombe himself said in the foreword to The Great Austrian Economists that "Two of Mises's American students stand out for their academic achievements and for their impact on the modern Austrian school: Israel M. Kirzner, an author of one of this volume's chapters, and Murray N. Rothbard, an author of two chapters and is profiled in a third chapter. Both established reputations as insightful economists, prolific authors, and—more to the point for present purposes—strong proponents of the Austrian School. They influenced students, not only at their own universities, but at other universities as well, by giving seminars and speaking at conferences, and of course through the impact of their writing. While Austrian economists are still rare in academic institutions, many of those students influenced by Kirzner and Rothbard now hold academic positions, and are in turn influencing a new generation of students." Quoting pages x and xi of the Introduction.
• Italian scholar Roberta A. Modugno wrote a book in Italian about Rothbard, then she edited and wrote a book in English, titled Rothbard vs. the Philosophers. Modugno says of Rothbard that he wrote a textbook on Austrian economics to be used for university students: Man, Economy, and State. Modugno describes how Rothbard started as an economist and then used his economics background as a springboard to write about liberalism and against social Darwinism, to write critically of Mises and Hayek, all based on economics theory. She says "Rothbard's criticism of Hayek is paradigmatic of the split we find today within the Austrian School of economics between the libertarians who refer back to Locke's version of the idea of right reason that enables an understanding of natural law, and the heirs of the theory, typical of the Austrian School, of a limited, fallible, and evolutionist kind of knowledge." She says Rothbard's 1992 work, The Present State of the Austrian School of Economics was the defining work which described the split.
• David Gordon (philosopher) said "Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar of extraordinary range, made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He developed and extended the Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises, in whose seminar he was a main participant for many years. He established himself as the principal Austrian theorist in the latter half of the twentieth century and applied Austrian analysis to topics such as the Great Depression of 1929 and the history of American banking." From page 7 of The Essential Rothbard, ISBN 9781610164580
• Lew Rockwell says that "Rothbard led the renaissance of the Austrian School of economics." Page 442 of Speaking of Liberty, ISBN 9781610163378
• There's also the obituary / editorial by Block, Hoppe and Salerno, appearing in Rothbard's Review of Austrian Economics in 1995.
• I should think Gordon's The Essential Rothbard would be extremely useful, more than just the quote above.
• Srich pointed out the Peter Boettke source The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics which heavily cites Rothbard and discusses him with regard to economics in various chapters such as Prychitko's "Praxeology", High's "Marginal utility", Kirzner's "Value-freedom", Cowen's "Austrian welfare economics", and Ikeda's "Interventionism", among others.
• Gary North's chapter called "Why Murray Rothbard Will Never Win the Nobel Prize!" is a good source for Rothbard's economics, starting with "Mark Skousen insists that Murray Rothbard ought to win the Nobel Prize in economics. I think so too, but..." This is found within the Rockwell edited book Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, ISBN 9781610163989
• Jesús Huerta de Soto writes about Rothbard's economics in The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency, ISBN 9780415427692. See especially page 12, the section subtitled "Murray N. Rothbard and the myth of static inefficiency: Roy E. Cordato's attempt at summation". There's also chapter 16: "New light on the prehistory of the theory of banking and the School of Salamanca", crediting Rothbard with tracing the roots of the Austrian School back to 16th century Spain.
• Karen I. Vaughn writes on page 139 in Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition about Rothbard's "instrumental" role in founding the LvMI the Review of Austrian Economics, as well as him serving as the so-called "dean" of a summer economics program at Stanford which he called "Mises University". On page 93 Vaughn begins a subsection titled "Murray Rothbard and the explication of Human Action" which talks about Rothbard's economics, how Rothbard critiqued Mises, some of Rothbard's proofs, including one in which Rothbard shows that a product's cost does not bear on its market price. Etc, etc.

• Peter G. Klein comments on Vaughn's opinion of Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises and Rothbard, saying that she finds their theories "backward-looking, inconsistent, and often wrong."[8] Klein defends Rothbard as a main contributor to "the theory of the firm"[9] and the economist's role in society.[10]

• Block and Rockwell's The Free Market Reader describes Rothbard's "rigorous theory of property rights [integrated with] a scientific theory of economics."[11] Rockwell calls Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State a tour de force of cohesive economic thought, formed from basic principles. This is in the chapter titled "Murray N. Rothbard: Giant of Liberty".
• Gene Callahan's Economics for Real People describe's the great impact of Rothbard's 1956 paper "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics" on interventionist welfare, page 251. On page 296, Callahan talks about Rothbard's emphasis not on market stability but on the interplay of economic forces. On page 318, Callahan discusses how influential was Rothbard's For a New Liberty in giving the Austrian School greater prominence. Callahan says Rothbard wrote many scholarly economics essays, published in Edward Elgar's Economists of the Century.
• Bruno Leoni praises Rothbard's "sharp and unbiased analysis" of monopolies. Law, Liberty, and the Competitive Market, page 104, ISBN 9781412812405
• UT Dallas professor Peter Lewin writes about Rothbard's important contributions to the pure time preference theory of interest (PTPT). Lewin says the most influential PTPT theorists are Böhm-Bawerk, Fetter, Mises, and Rothbard (Rothbard wrote about it in 1970.) Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, pages 101–104.
• Steeletrap said our sources "should be published in mainstream journals, not the Mises Institute journals", a set of blinders which I cannot fasten upon my head. Why would one purposely ignore those who are the greatest experts on Rothbard's contributions to economics? It is nonsense to do so. I welcome equally any sources which are from notable economists or sociologists, no matter the connection to LvMI. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome equally any sources which are from notable economists or sociologists, no matter the connection to LvMI.

I would have to disagree with that. Sources not published by one's own foundation would be preferred as more neutral, especially when making claims about a figure's importance. This would be true no matter what topic we were discussing. WP:IRS (emphasis mine):

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

One's own foundation is decidedly not a third-party source. Hey look, there's an essay on it: WP:INDY — goethean 00:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your INDY link describes a situation where the author gains no personal benefit from writing about the topic as an independent source. Show me where Austrian School economists are going to derive personal benefit from unduly praising Rothbard. Also, the INDY essay says that competitors are a negative, non-independent source. For the maverick Austrian School, their competitors are everyone else in economics, so if you accept this stance, the essay has just crossed off every single source. I don't accept that. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's...an interesting interpretation. Let's just not use sources published by Rothbard's own foundation. — goethean 00:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's use them. You wouldn't hold back from using the Truman Library's research on details of Truman's life, would you? This is all we are doing here, filling in the details. The notability of Rothbard as an economist is established with independent sources, but they are thin on detail. Steeletrap is complaining that nobody has been writing the economist section, so, gee whiz, where should we look for details? Why, there's a veritable who's who of economists writing about Rothbard—a dozen can easily be found, and more. Steeletrap is just as acquainted with the topic as anybody here, probably more so than some, but perhaps the motivation is missing. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the academic reception of Rothbard's economic ideas was as overwhelming as you claim, then it should be a simple matter to use sources not published by Rothbard's own foundation. As it would be for Harry Truman, to use your own example. — goethean 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerard Casey (philosopher) ISBN 9781623563165 - Bloombury
• Ralph Raico ISBN 9781610165549 - LvMI
• Edward Elgar Publishing - blurbs don't count.
• Randall G. Holcombe ISBN 9781610164399 - LvMI
• Thomas DiLorenzo - LvMI
• Randall G. Holcombe The Great Austrian Economists - LvMI
• David Gordon (philosopher) The Essential Rothbard - LvMI
• Lew Rockwell Speaking of Liberty - LvMI
• obituary/editorial by Block, Hoppe and Salerno - Springer
• Gordon's The Essential Rothbard - LvMI
• The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics - Edward Elgar Publishing
• Gary North ISBN 9781610163989 - LvMI
• Jesús Huerta de Soto ISBN 9780415427692. Routledge
• Karen I. Vaughn - Cambridge
• Peter G. Klein - LvMI
• Block and Rockwell's The Free Market Reader - LvMI
• Gene Callahan's Economics for Real People - LvMI
• Bruno Leoni ISBN 9781412812405 - Transaction Publishers
• Peter Lewin Routledge

Looks like you've got seven usable sources: Casey, Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics, de Soto, Vaughn, Leoni, Lewin. Not sure about the obituary. — goethean 21:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The books by Casey and Boettke appear to meet rs, based on the publishers. Rothbard however does not receive any coverage in mainstream economics textbooks. TFD (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[insert] The listing above seems to suggest that if a source is published through LvMI, that the author cannot be used. Or is the criteria that those works published by LvMI are not to be used? I am unclear. In any event, I did a check on the first wikilinked LvMI name – Ralph Raico. Seems that Raico has been published by George Mason University OCLC 21573481, a Stuttgart publisher, Lucius & Lucius OCLC 52523633, by Liberty Press OCLC 7427364, and some others (mainly audiobook products). So, does Raico qualify as RS or not? – S. Rich (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I don't think that we should be using materials published by Rothbard's own foundation, especially in order to gauge Rothbard's notability in a field. Materials published by established, non-partisan presses (Routledge, Springer, Transaction) by authors who also happened published by LvMI seems fine to me. Of course, it would certainly be better if we could get truly independent opinion from scholars who are not employed by LvMI, but that appears to be very difficult to impossible here, especially if we want material which is positive about Rothbard.

One of the article that I worked on in the past was Ken Wilber. Wilber is a new age writer who wants to be portrayed as an important contemporary philosopher. Wilber's organization is called the Integral Institute. If I could only offer materials published by Integral Institute in order to document Wilber's reception, it would not be considered acceptable to use those materials. I've even had people tell me that using materials published by the University of Chicago Press is not independent enough to use at the Wendy Doniger article, because she works there. So this is not something that I am making up. — goethean 14:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance in WP:RS says "Context matters The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." I read this as requiring a statement-by-statement analysis. Too much of the editing in this (and other) articles is improperly justified by comments like "not-mainstream", "fringe", "cult", "primary source", "SPS", WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ILIKEIT, "non-notable source", "not-independent source", "partisan source", "not significant", "non-expert", etc. And then there is POV-selective editing: we see some people pushing on the WP:POLE simply because they like Rothbard and some pushing simply because they do not. The Ken Wilber, Integral Institute, and Wendy Doniger articles do not seem to have suffered the same editing spams, but each of my quoted editing rationales (fringe, new age, cult, heterodox, etc.) could be splashed about in editing those articles to justify the changes of stuff that they don't like on a personal basis. When we ("we", as in the community of Wikipedia editors) see such editing justifications, we need to consider whether the edit is the result of "careful weighing [in a NPOV manner] to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made...." – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that my opposition to the use of materials published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute to gauge the relative magnitude of Rothbard's contributions to the field of economics is driven by some anti-Rothbard POV of mine, then I would be happy to discuss that thesis of yours in the appropriate forum. In point of fact, I don't think that my edits have shown any POV regarding Rothbard, pro- or anti-. I would be happy to review and respond to any evidence that you are willing to offer at the appropriate venue. However, in the absence of any evidence of POV editing on the part of myself or any other editor to this article, I would ask you to stop making unsupported accusations of POV editing such as your preceding comment. I just explained in what I thuoght was a pretty even-handed and non-polemical way, using examples from other articles, how the use of materials from the LvMI is inappropriate to gauge Rothbard's contributions to the field of economics. I went through each of Binksternet's sources, and found the publisher of each, and the vast majority of them were from the LvMI. This is unacceptable for the reasons that I have explained in detail. However, you are welcome to use the independent sources that I listed above. Please explain why you think that these statements reveal some POV pushing on my part. — goethean 18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of casting aspersions on the motives of your fellow editors, why don't you make a positive case for why you think it is entirely appropriate to use sources published by Rothbard's own foundation to gauge Rothbard's contributions to economics rather than using independent scholars? — goethean 18:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-No! Please, I was not casting aspersions on any particular editors, least of all you. I tried to characterize my remarks in general terms because these disputes about editing extend beyond the MR article. A variety of editors have engaged in these efforts to improve this article – and others. And the POLE essay reflects the fact that our goal is an improved article. I did not go through all of Binkster's references, but I did point out how Raico has been published in non-LvMI sources. And so I posed the rhetorical question and asked if we were characterizing him (and others) as non-RS simply because the material was published by LvMI. Indeed, even if people in Binkster's list publish solely in LvMI, we still can use the LvMI material provided we do a careful analysis in the context of how the material is used. Regarding motivations, it is no secret that many, many, many WP editors have motivations that may conflict or hinder or hamper or distort or influence (etc) their editing. We see it everywhere. I, too, have my motivations. For example, I'm no fan of "new age" stuff. But I did some edits to the Wilber article, quite minor, which I hope improved it. My edit in the Integral Institute article was to remove a redlinked name. What if I had did an edit summary that said "remove non-notable redlinked name from lunatic fringe group of cult wackos."? (Again, this is a rhetorical question!) Would my motivation be suspect? Yes. Would my edit removing the redlink stand in terms of WP policy and guidance? I hope so. Please, Goethean, you have been most evenhanded. I applaud you for this. And I am sorry because I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)19:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that User:Steeletrap thinks a National Review rant against Rothbard and Rothbards University colleague Hoppe's rave for Rothbard are fine to use on Wikipedia, I don't think he's got much credibility in re: debunking tenured professors as references just because they have some loose affiliation with Mises Institute or LewRockwell.com or anyone else who ever had a loose affiliation with them. But all we have to do is take each and everyone to WP:RSN which surely will find them WP:RS.

I'm still in recovering from vacation mode, but if I can manage not to look at all the WP:OR POV interpretations of primary sources for a few days, I'll finally get together that mass of material sitting on my hard drive (including sources mentioned above). I guess I must be a PhD scholar researcher if I can find so much which others could not. User:Carolmooredc 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between being an expert qualified to judge contributions to economics and an "expert" qualified to judge contributions to anarcho-capitalism and historical revisionism. I have pointed this out to Carolmoore many times, and am disappointed but not surprised that this distinction has eluded her. Steeletrap (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert: So Hans-Herman Hoppe is an expert on something in your opinion; that point is finally clarified. Of course, I don't think anyone is going to call the National Review opinion piece an "expert piece", just a useable one for the writer's conservative opinion, and even that's debatable, especially if a higher quality source can be used to replace it. And I and others have pointed out many times that tenured professors who write about Rothbard don't lose their expert status because they are affiliated with some institution or publication that he used to be affiliated with or that admires his work. User:Carolmooredc 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol. Per WP:NPA, please comment on content, not on the contributor.

User:Steeletrap, there's no need to respond to Carol's personal attacks. — goethean 16:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. When biases are so strong they seem to lead to biased interpretation of sources, it is ok to point it out. However, I don't have time to debate ad nauseam, so I just struck it. User:Carolmooredc 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that you want other users to opine about your own credibility while making arguments? I think that we shouild talk about the article instead of who we think has or lacks credibility. — goethean 14:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned and amazed at the reaction to my original post. What exactly is so inflammatory with asking editors to add RS from independent, mainstream, peer-reviewed journals? As for bias against Mises scholars, I explicitly said that "it would be fine to publish a Rothbard co-worker's article if the article were published in a mainstream, reliable journal." If the claims of Rothbard's friends and co-workers (which is who the vast majority of Bink's sources are) that he made major contribution to economics are credible, then these claims would appear in independent, mainstream economic journals. Steeletrap (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your stunned reaction was predictable. You started your post with "My view is that Rothbard is not notable as an economist." Such a view is nonsense; Rothbard's writing as an economist has been cited hundreds if not thousands of times. If you had any desire at all to see the Rothbard economist section expanded, you would have been looking through various economic journals where his ideas have been discussed. Here's an easy one to get you started: "Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard" by Tyler Cowen and Richard Fink in The American Economic Review, 1985. Here's a list of economic journals to help your search. In your search, try setting "Rothbard" next to the name of the journal. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] Bink, your remarks are off-topic. This thread is about adding independent RS for Rothbard's contributions to economics, not about whether he is notable as an economist. Thank you for adding the Cowen RS; that is a good start but we need more such RS. Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] Bink, this is why I keep reiterating to you that it is important to read articles before citing them. Having read the Cowen article, I know see that you misrepresented it as representing a contribution of Rothbard's to mainstream theory. Instead, the Cowen and Fink article examine and reject an alternative to mainstream equilibrium theory proposed by Rothbard. Steeletrap (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As long as it is an independent economist discussing Rothbard's ideas, whether they accept, reject, or are apathetic towards Rothbard's ideas, they still represent Rothbard's contribution to economics debate/research and can/should be mentioned in the article. — goethean 18:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] Goethean, just to clarify, I fully agree that discussion of Rothbard in an RS is relevant and should be added to the article. I also agree that discussion in an RS represents Rothbard's contribution to the debate.

However, it should be noted that crackpot nonsense such as creationism, AIDS Denial, and Holocaust Denial have also "contributed to the debate" insofar as they have provoked extensive examination and research (to debunk them) in mainstream journals. By "contribution", I mean research or theory that is accepted as correct or sound or at least plausibly so, which Cowen and Fink do not regard Rothbard's equilibrium theory to be. Steeletrap (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An idea that's immediately rejected is a misfire, not a contribution. MilesMoney (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the discussions we see (above, etc.) mix WP guidelines. Certainly Rothbard meets general WP notability standards. The next question is what sort of RS is available to document the content of the article. In this regard we can do an RS analysis of the statements in context. Whether the RS comes from LvMI or LR.com or other sources, we consider its context in the article. With that in mind, we consider UNDUE/WEIGHT etc. If statements (from whatever source) are used in a promotional or other inappropriate fashion, then we make our modifications. Is Rothbard on a par with Keynes or Hayek in terms of influence in realm of economics? I don't think so. But that does not mean Rothbard is "not notable" in economics or other areas. And we can use LvMI etc. as a source which presents a balanced and informative article for the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich, that statement entirely begs the question as to which references are RS for the cited content. Moreover you confuse RS of a reference with balanced discussion of the subject within the text of a WP article. Please state specifically what action you propose. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steele opened this tread as a rather general topic -- the need for useful RS in describing MR as an economist. But such a need applies whether we are describing MR as an economist or anything else. My comment, inserted above [12], cited the policy that says evaluate statements in context because Context matters. And that policy applies everywhere. My specific proposal? In each of our edits we must follow WP guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're affirming that your remark added nothing to the discussion. If you have specific instrumental proposals, please share them. Your message addressed neither OP nor any of the subsequent discussion. Nobody here disagrees about following WP site policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich's comments are right on the money. SPECIFICO, I think it is time you were made aware of this fine bit of humor. Enjoy. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First step to not being a dick is not calling everyone else one.

What's the actual dispute here? We can't trust Rothbard's institute to tell us how important he is because they're hugely biased. And if we can't find neutral sources saying he's important, then that's that. MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me of historical interest since it shows a major funder (Blumert who has an article) with Rockwell and Gordon who obviously are relevant to ongoing Mises.org. Of course some might see this as a "guilt by association" picture of Rothbard with his "nefarious allies" and if it was captioned to that effect I'd certainly have a problem. I am mystified as to why Specifico wants it out or where previous discussion is. User:Carolmooredc 15:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lousy illustration. Rothbard looks like a drunken gerbil in this photo, as opposed to his normal handsome self. Most important the photo is too small to see the 4 figures and another editor has repeatedly insisted it not be formatted at, say 360 px so that it would be visible and intelligible. The mobile WP site is no concern because it doesn't use the illustration px sizes. Feel free to increase the size or remove. It's nice clear pic of Llewellyn and Gordon, but it makes Murray look like an old toad, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers who wish to see a bigger version of the photo can click it, so sizing is not a major issue. (We do not want images that overwhelm the text.) The need or desirability for rhytidectomy may be apparent in the photo, but so what? (People get older and skin sags sooner or later.) The image is helpful in so far that it shows MR "hanging out" with other interesting people. Perhaps Photoshop retouches can make the image nicer. In any event, keep it. – S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image seems fine to me. It's pretty sharp for a relatively small photo. I think some of you folks are using other issues like this one as proxies to fight over an underlying ideological conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's just a lousy photo. It's poor quality illustration. It should be replaced. There must be some standard here. The mustard blob one was even worse. We can't just throw up random snapshots because somebody chose to upload them. Just as with any other content, it should be competent and effective and worthy of publication. Please do not disparage the motivations of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the photo is perfectly appropriate, and I do not question the motives of anyone engaged in appropriate behavior. But when a discussion of a photo quickly degenerates into a discussion of antisemitism, then it's clear there are some underlying problems. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a section added to cover the distinct subject of Rothbard's loss of financial support from the Kochs/Cato and his jockeying for new backers and a new affiliation which led to the formation of the Mises Institute. There is a good deal of information available, much of it online, some of it in books such as Allan Lichtman's White Protestant Nation and others which exist only in print. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) I'm trying to focus on my own initiatives for radical decentralist libertarian change. However, I think the excellent work to improve feminism articles - see here - through the Wikipedia:Education program would be a great way to bring more libertarian and Austrian economics profs and students capable of following policy, especially NPOV, to some of these sadly distorted articles to clean them up. And of course doing it in a manner consistent with Wikiprocess and the education project. Maybe I'll make that the focus of my Wiki activities, beside keeping a few of the less controversial articles I watch from going off track... Meanwhile, unwatching page again until report for whomsoever the serious deviations from policy I see. Especially WP:Attack page. User:Carolmooredc

Why are we using Kevin D. Williamson's editorial in the National Review[14] as a source for this article?[15] This is a writer who wonders about Obama's birth certificate. TFD (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] Correction of OP Though Williamson has repeatedly published pieces about birtherism, he is no birther, and writes about birthers with ridicule and contempt. (1) (2) Since OP's concern about the source is predicated on a false premise, I think we should hat this sub-section. Steeletrap (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an intra-conservative debate, where Williamson's views are taken seriously. — goethean 20:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it considered acceptable for Steeletrap and SPECIFICO to edit war by removing NPOV edits, despite the issues of emphasis stated at the top of the page? It is obvious there is no consensus for their biased edits, which have been continually challenged and even resulted in a challenge to the Good Article status of the article? This has also occurred on the Hoppe article. It is obvious from a review of Steeletrap's page that there is a specific bias against Hoppe and Rothbard which obviously influences all of their edits. The denial that those who disagree with them are really "economists" is an especially heinous example of their bias compromising the integrity of the article, and fortunately has since been reversed. But the obsessive emphasis on the late Paleo period is obviously for the purpose of character assassination, and anyone who attempts to remove the attacks on Rothbard which they have inserted throughout the article are all immediately reverted, causing an unnecessary edit war. I propose that the issues they have created throughout the article be removed, and then the article be protected or semi-protected.71.209.221.48 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From all I can see, they're not biased or edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is your concern, OP? If you would specify some content we might be able to take this beyond the realm of personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice deleted a few sentences based on observations made by Associate Professor Matt Zwolinski of the University of Sand Diego's Philosophy Department. Zwolinski is not notable in Wikipedia's terms (he has no biography written), and he is not a prominent author on the subject of Rothbard. Thus he does not deserve to be named explicitly as if he were important to the topic. Zwolinski's two cites are as follows:

• http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/10/reading-the-ethics-of-liberty-part-4-rothbards-second-argument-for-self-ownership "Reading The Ethics of Liberty, Part 4 – Rothbard’s Second Argument for Self-Ownership"
• http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/05/how-not-to-argue-for-libertarianism "How Not to Argue for Libertarianism"

The Bleeding Heart Libertarians website says it is a blog. I see no reason why a blog which does not satisfy WP:NEWSBLOG should be used as a reference here. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ethics" section now has a hatnote for The Ethics of Liberty. (If Rothbard has discussed ethics in other books, they might be added to the hatnote.) In as much as Zwolinski is commenting on the book, and his expertise is in philosophy, his comments ought to be in the book article. In this article the inclusion is WP:UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you rejecting user Binksternet's arguments against MZ and the cited source?

No. Context matters. With that in mind, I am supplementing Binksternet's argument. I think/speculate a better explanation of MR's views on ethics can be discussed in The Ethics of Liberty. – S. Rich (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you said. Binksternet is denying that the cited reference is RS. You are stating that it should be used in another WP article to cite the same content. An "all of the above" posture is not convincing re: WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the guidance is WP:RS#Context matters. As this article is a biography, I think Zwolinski's views about The Ethics of Liberty would fit better in that article. RS in one article does not translate to RS in other articles. That's why I said "Context matters." – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That fallacy is also covered in the links which I asked you to read. You are misrepresenting user Binksternet's arguments, which is not civil either to him or to those who read or post in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing that here at the Rothbard biography the BHL blog should not be used, that it is not reliable for analysis of Rothbard's career because the blog author is not an acknowledged expert. I am not concerned about other uses of the blog, at other articles, especially if local consensus can be reached among involved editors. The biggest problem with all blogs and self-published sources is the writer: is s/he widely known as a topic expert? Here we are examining whether Zwolinski is prominent enough for us (and our readers) to care about what he says on the topic, and whether he is known as a Rothbard expert. I say that Zwolinski's minor status on the topic of Rothbard puts him at a disadvantage as the author of the blog entry about Rothbard. Wikipedia expects that a blog writer should be an acknowledged expert on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, I've already pointed out to you that MZ is not commenting on Rothbard's life or career but on a specific work of philosophy (MZ's area of professional expertise) by Rothbard. Editors who read your posts here are likely to wonder why you repeat yourself without either acknowledging what I've just repeated or stating why you disagree with what I've stated. Incidentally, by the standard you propose, "acknowledged expert..." we'd have to remove most of the content relating to the views of the neo-Austrian and Mises Institute Fellows. I don't advocate that. When we're trying to write a full and balanced article about a fringe figure such as Rothbard, I am pleased to find acknowledged academics who have taken the time and trouble to read the subjects' work. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you say that Rothbard is fringe (and it has been several times now) it makes me disbelieve you all the more. If you truly believed he was fringe you would nominate this article for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[inserted] Binksternet, what WP policy says that fringe theories and theorists do not deserve WP articles? I'll be interested to learn about it. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like too much weight to give to a very minor source, especially when there is ample written material about the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gamaliel. I have been able to find very little discussion of Rothbard's major works except from his colleagues at Mises Institute and Fellows there after Rothbard's death. With a paucity of mainstream independent discussion of Rothbards views and theories, various editors have pointed out that we should not be quick to reject any such source. If you could point us to a trove of independent critical discussion of Rothbard's work, that would be much appreciated. If not, I urge caution in rejecting a bona fide discussion of Rothbard's philosophical work. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[16] [17] Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, those are two of the sort of weak sources to which I refer. Are you familiar with the authors and their work and affiliations? If you have articles from mainstream academic journals or books from scholarly publishers, those would be what we need. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay apparently I underestimated the Mises circlejerk. Even the guy who wrote the book from a mainstream, major academic publisher is a Mises fellow. However, regardless of the paucity of available sources, we should not elevate a very minor source in this manner. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That goes without saying, but Callahan is a well-regarded academic and this is his field of expertise. There's been some interesting discussion about how to treat these closed-loop "scholarly" communities while remaining true to RS policy. An experienced user, Stalwart, has posted to a previous thread on the subject, I think on RSN. Thanks for your thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifico, you say that with With a lack of mainstream independent discussion of Rothbards views and theories, various editors have suggested using weaker sources. In my view, if good sources do not exist then we should report less. That Zwolinski is an expert means that we can accept the facts he presents as reliable but it does not help us in determining what weight if any to assign his views. TFD (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TFD. I know you to be a knowledgeable and thoughtful contributor here. Where have I stated that we should use "weaker sources"? I believe that either on this page or a related thread I emphasized that is not my view. I stated that Prof. Zwolinski is an acknowledged scholar in this area and a qualified academic commentator. I stated that not everyone whose work is used as an inline citation need have a WP article about them. Do you disagree with me on that, or do you disagree with user Binksternet's assertion to that effect at the beginning of this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 7 images of other people plus the AR flag in the article. WP:IRELEV says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." This bevy of images is now the source of contention. Instead of simple names on the image captions, we have editorial image comments such as the support for Strom Thurmond, Blumert as a backer of the von Mises Institute, the embracing of David Duke. Blumert and Rockwell get two images each because they are seen in the group photo. Spooner & Tucker are not significantly and directly related to the article topic, nor are Rand & Mises. Should we be including Keynes, Locke, Paul, Burns, etc? No. The justification for including those folks is no stronger than justification for including the present batch. And there is no justification for the present batch of non-Rothbard images. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The article was getting overstuffed with too many images which were interfering with the text. I removed a bunch of them, the least relevant ones, and I slimmed down the upright portraits using the 'upright' thumbnail parameter. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mises and Rand should go too. And Rockwell – he's already in the group photo.– S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)16:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, but this smells bad. You point out that these photos link Rothbard with various bigots, then you say they have to go. It's almost as if you're trying to downplay his endorsement of these bigots, which would go against WP:NPOV. I think we need to keep the photos until we can gain some consensus on what's fair and balanced. MilesMoney (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not call them bigots. They are the key influences and models for Rothbard's work, as verified by cited Reliable Source reference citations. As such, they are the appropriate illustrations for this article. Rothbard developed his work by synthesizing and extending the work of these forebears -- that much is known from our RS references, so we are fortunate to have wikimedia files available to illustrate them. I continue to believe that the group photo, muddled and remote, is poor quality, but I believe that one editor objected when I removed it a while ago. Perhaps now with the better quality photos of the same subjects we could consider removing the group photo. At any rate, let's not denigrate these chaps by tagging them as bigots and let's leave them up unless consensus develops to remove them. They're valid per reliable sourced content in the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flag isn't that important, and maybe Tucker can go. MilesMoney (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we can drop Rand, but not Mises. MilesMoney (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that Tucker was less of a factor in Rothbard's development than Spooner or Rand. The flag seems appropriate, although we should verify when the flag was developed and whether Rothbard expressed any endorsement or rejection of it. I'd hesitate to drop Rand, especially after Rothbard's brief flirtation and flip-flop on her, but you're right it's unthinkable to drop Mises. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This not a question of censorship. Simply removing the images does not change any text, but adding all the images which do not significantly and directly relate to this biography clutters the article from a WP layout standpoint. But the problem of all the different images becomes one of UNDUE, especially when remarks such as "embraced" are added to captions. – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV has nothing to say when the guideline against too many images is being violated. Images in the article should only show the most relevant points made in the text. They should not crowd the text. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove that unintelligible little group photo and also Ayn Rand, who definitely brightens up the page but does not rank above Spooner, Duke or Thurmond in her centrality to Rothbard's philosophy. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(cough), sorry to butt in as this isn't my area of expertise. I saw Binksternet mentioned in a claim of edit-war, and as our paths have crossed from time to time I followed the trail to see what the thorny issue was; and looking at the dispute a thought struck me. Outside of the appropriateness of the images to the article, aren't some of them (eg Rand's) under non-free use and need rationales for their inclusion here to be also added to the image page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the above-mentioned guideline that refers to "mere" aesthetic considerations, the images clearly violate two core Wikipedia policies: the NPOV policy referred to above and the verifiability policy, in particular, its principle of burden of evidence ("burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.". --Technopat (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Technopat. Why do you believe that these images violate NPOV and verifiability? These are key figures in Rothbard's life/work/thought and are established as such by RS citations in text. At first, even the Mises portrait was removed, even though Rothbard repeatedly cited Mises as the #1 influence on him and co-founded an Institute dedicated to Mises. Could you elucidate? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A case in point is the photo caption "Rothbard embraced the right-wing populism of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke" which violates both NPOV and verifiability in one fell swoop. While it's true that in his essay on right-wing populism, cited as a reference in the body of the article (RS excludes primary sources/original research), he states that "...there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians;..." he also goes on to add that "...even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point." As far as I can see in that essay, there doesn't seem to be anything else in there that confirms he "embraced" Duke. BTW, one of the first things journalists study is how images and photo captions are used extensively to manipulate information, even to the point of intentionally giving a contradicting message to that given in the body of the text they supposedly "merely" complement. Wikipedia obviously has to ensure that its photo captions also comply fully with its own NPOV policy. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert] The Duke stuff is drawn largely from the cited "who wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters" Reason article (1), which notes that Rothbard cited Duke's "right-wing populism" as a model for his paleolibertarian movement. Saying he embraced Duke's right-wing populism is a modest paraphrase. The captions could be shortened though, and I have no objection to that. Steeletrap (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I went back and looked at the captions. Some of them are just the names of those pictured. Others are direct quotations or paraphrases of the cited article text. I don't see how they could be questioned on the basis you are presenting, however even in the event we limit captions to a name and date or some other minimal identification of the image content, do you believe that an improper caption justifies removal of the image itself? What about the deleted images that had only minimal captions? That is what you and user Binsernet appear to be saying? SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In opening this discussion I had 3 concerns. First was the number of images that went beyond WP:IRELEV. Second was the contention that had arisen. (I was thinking about the slow EW that involved several images, including those with more than minimal captions.) Third was the NPOV and UNDUE nature of the image captions. Duke's image, for one, infringed in all respects: not IRELEV, subject to EW, and had elements of NPOV & UNDUE (as the article only has one paragraph involving him). As it stands I think the article is now well/better balanced image-wise. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, and I don't agree with your misinterpretation of policy. MilesMoney (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@srich'That's the kitchen sink objection again and it has no basis in policy with respect to the content of this article, as referenced and cited. User Technopat has stated a principled objection and is engaging in dialog about the issues he raised. We should not get off track before he returns to give his reply in this thread. Please reserve your comments. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflicts). My first – and only – intervention was to intervene in a clear case of edit-warring – whereby unsourced/NPOV content was being restored in violation of burden of evidence (see above). Content which, on later examination, also violates verifiability. My edit simply reverted to a "correct" version of the article from a policy viewpoint. If that means some collateral damage, i.e., a valid image was also removed, so what? As per normal editing at Wikipedia, if the image in question complies with Wikipedia policy, it gets put back. No damage done. As I'm sure you will agree, the important thing is to prevent edit-warring, and when consensus has been reached on this talk page by the editors who have an interest in and/or knowledge of this subject as to which images are suitable, any missing – and essential – image simply gets restored. As for the pictures with "a name and date or some other minimal identification of the image content", I obviously have no objection – within the limits set by a reasonable interpretation of the corresponding guideline. Whether or not that coincides with what another editor "appears to be saying", I have no idea: as I have just pointed out, I was merely intervening in an edit war. Since then, I have pointed out on this page that care also needs to be taken with the photo captions and NPOV. Hope that answers your questions. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that your own comment acknowledged that mine was a good-faith edit, not edit-warring. It was only after you edit-warred to support Bink that you decided you needed to cover your tracks by accusing me of what you're guilty of. I think you've done enough harm for one day. MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have since seen that this article is up for "Good article reassessment". I'd just like to point out that with the edit-warring that is evident from a glance at the recent history of this article, its chances of keeping GA status are pretty slim, so I'd recommend y'all to go for consensus. Although I have very strong views on the criteria for GA, especially as regards stability, I shall refrain from commenting at the assessment page. I've seen consensus reached on far more complex issues, so please go for it. Good luck! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is as it should be: it's not a good article because it's getting a hefty injection of POV from the entertainers. I reverted to the last consensus version. MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what I said about this article being really terrible. It's bloated, bland and dishonest. For contrast, read http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard. It's short, it doesn't hem and haw, and it's not bending over backwards to make him look good or bad; it's honest. If only we could be half as rational. MilesMoney (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection. Jeez! I start a discussion that addresses a MOS issue (layout) and despite a reasoned and well based rationale for removal of images, editors want to push them back into the article without a consensus being agreed upon. And what do we see immediately above? A comparison of WP to rationalewiki.org. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was fine, but your suggested changes met with a great deal of resistance and never had consensus, yet you and Bink edit-warred to push them into place. Asking for PP now would look like some sort of attempt to freeze it into your version so that you don't get reported for edit-warring again. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of David Duke

As a jew, I am no fan of this crackpot. But he was a seminal influence on Professor Rothbard's paleolibertarian political theory, which cited Duke's political platfomr as a "model" for a successful and principled rise to (white?) power. At a cosmetic level, Professor Duke, like Murray, looks very handsome in the picture wearing a smart suit, an impish grin, and a very professional looking headset. Steeletrap (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected – image deletion

Please revert the article back to this version in which the recently added disputed images are removed. The disputed images should be removed until discussion concludes regarding inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I support this request. We were close to consensus, with MilesMoney and others agreeing. But the side issue of image captions was seized upon to justify restoration of multiple images that simply do not comply with WP:IRELEV. Leaving the images as is could be seen as a successful WP:GAMING tactic -- "evading the spirit of community consensus." – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a consensus for removing all of those photos. That's why so many people keep reverting the Rich & Bink Show. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the consensus for adding the images and you'll have something. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind to all the people arguing with you or reverting your unwanted changes? MilesMoney (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered the question. Specifico spent three days adding nine images, their captions, and some article expansion text in early September. There was never any discussion of the images, not until now. The first discussion about them was regarding their removal. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I only protected the article for 24 hours - I realize the images were recently added and WP:STATUSQUO should reign, but the purpose of the full protection was to stop the edit war, and I don't think having the WP:WRONG version up for 24 hours will hurt anything. Besides, I'd have to see more evidence of consensus before I made an edit to a fully protected article. I won't deactivate the edit request, however, and any other admins who happen by are welcome to make the edit if they see fit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photo of elderly Rothbard

I think it is appropriate to have a photo of Rothbard with white hair. This image served as the infobox portrait for quite a while until it was recently replaced by Specifico who chose an image of the man in his younger years. Let's see what editors here prefer. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Elderly Rothbard image in infobox, move young Rothbard to article body
2. Elderly Rothbard image in infobox, no young Rothbard
3. Elderly Rothbard image in article body
4. No image of elderly Rothbard

Photo survey

• 1 is my first choice. 3 is my second choice. There is certainly room for two photos of Rothbard. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article has discussion about The Ethics of Liberty scattered about in different sections. While a See main hatnote refers to the main article, that piece is a 4,202 byte stub. This article is 75,668 bytes. In accordance with WP:SIZERULE, the Ethics stuff can be (and should be) placed in the book article. – S. Rich (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong in principle with moving some of the details out but summarizing here. However, a whitewashed summary would turn this into a criticism fork. MilesMoney (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the expansion of Ethics would comply with NPOV. As would the WP:SUMMARY in this article. WP:SPINOFF describes what is acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, presently, we have a hodgepodge in Murray Rothbard#Ethics. It starts off by saying MR adopted Mises's deductive method, but that Mises did not employ ethical arguments. Then talks about self-ownership, but does not tie this into ethics, except WRT Zwolinski said. Next it talks about Rand, but does not tie the subject into ethics. Praxelolgy comes up, again without a tie-in to ethics. And at the end it comes back to Locke, again without tying in ethics. This rendition is not exhaustive or detailed, but is meant to roughly illustrate how the present text fails to give much meaningful summary of what MR thinks about ethics. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)23:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich, you may be venturing outside your area of competence on this material. It's not helpful to call this section a "hodgepodge". Like every other section of WP it will eventually be improved but the current text is a good coherent discussion of many of the most important aspects of Rothbard's thought in this area and you should not denigrate the parts which you do not understand, for example the appropriateness of the Locke mention at the end. That sentence may be expanded or removed in some future version, but it's not a "hodgepodge". SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because I am not an "expert" I have a greater qualification to assess this material. E.g., is it a readable summary that serves to educate the average reader? Accordingly, I opened this discussion, which has started off by suggesting that Ethics of Liberty could or should be better summarized in the other article is geared towards improving the article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. The less you understand the material, the more of a mess you'd make trying to "fix" it. Good thing you'll never have the chance. MilesMoney (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== The show goes on. ==

Binksternet is embarrassed by this description of his tag-team edit-warring, so he keeps violating the rules by deleting it. Too bad nothing ever really gets deleted on Wikipedia. But what's really too bad is that the show goes on. Bink tagged Rich and now the latter is edit-warring to keep those photos out. It's hilarious to watch the lengths these two will go to violate Wikipedia policy. Let's see if Bink tries to delete this, too. It would be fun to watch him incriminate himself by doing so. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC) --Technopat (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this: In the course of defending Ron Paul from Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Paul's "evolution denial," Rothbard's longtime friend and confidante Lew Rockwell noted that, like Paul, Rothbard "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism". become "skepticism of evolution"? 1. Worst of all, the "doubts" about the "official church of Darwinism" becomes skepticism about evolution. How? Seems that Rockwell was actually talking more about how certain people (groups or whatever) accepted Darwinism as a "faith" rather than skepticism of evolution itself. 2. Where do we get Andrew Sullivan? The letter to the editor of The Atlantic is simply an unidentified reader. 3. The Rockwell comment is more of a blog entry involving Ron Paul. 4. Why do we see that Rockwell was the long time friend and confidant at that particular point? Besides the OR aspects of this entry, we have a problem with RS. That is, the material (Rockwell's quote) does not directly support the idea that Rothbard was a skeptic of evolution as required by WP:RS#Context matters. And even if Rothbard was a skeptic of evolution, 5. how can this be encyclopedic? Did he tout his skepticism in some fashion where it was significant? He was a political theorist & economist. Such a personal belief, mentioned in an incidental fashion, is not worth keeping. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR, but Rothbard's view is documented and cited by Rockwell. Notable and well-sourced for this context. SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we go with our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter what some random economist thinks of evolution? If the only source for this view is the blog of a friend, this, aside from the RS issues, demonstrates that this matter is not important enough to mention in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell was not speaking merely as a friend, he was Rothbard's longtime collaborator in their libertarian program and the co-founder of the Institute where Rothbard was the intellectual leader. They started each day with a lengthy phone conversation. By random economist do you mean Rothbard? If so, where else would we present Rothbard's views if not in the article about him?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

This article should present Rothbard's notable views. The lack of significant coverage regarding Rothbard's views on evolution demonstrates that they are not notable. This is like covering Cameron Diaz's views on string theory. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell's comments count as significant coverage, and the fact is itself notable. MilesMoney (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One blog post is "significant coverage"? Gamaliel (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's Rockwell, yes. MilesMoney (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel Not only does Rockwell's choice to discuss these views attest to their notability. The anti-evolution view is one component of Rothbard's and Rockwell's "paleo-libertarian" strategy to assemble a coalition of demographic and ideological groups which would support the Mises Institute and Rothbard's political/ideological agenda. The silly comparison to Cameron Diaz ignores the context of the cited fact -- both in Rothbard's thought system and in his political/institutional strategy. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply amazing to me how the earlier kerfuffle against "walled garden" sources is thrown out the window when one of Rothbard's close colleagues says something juicy that can be used against him. If this Rockwell source is accepted, then every single thing from the LvMI can be brought to this article, including all the positive viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you should understand, content and context determine whether a publication/author is RS for a given assertion in article text. Your generalization has no basis in policy. SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend I'm a reader who is new to the subject. Explain what context we have here which makes Rockwell's opinion significant. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because a source says something is not justification for including it in an article. WP:ISNOT demonstrates amply that such is not the case. MilesMoney says "If it's Rockwell, yes." Simply because it's about Rockwell? Is this description which vaguely describes his views about a non-economics/non-political theory issue really notable? Well, if so, then POV seems to be the motivation for such inclusion. I urge editors to take a wider look at the article as one of many in WP. Gamaliel's comments are right on in this respect. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich, I've just explained above why it is a political/theory issue. You should strike your PA on Miles above and remember to WP:AGF in the future. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One: The 8 words "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism" are a NPOV & BALANCED exposition/description of Rothbard's political theories about evolution? Two: MilesMoney's statement "If it's Rockwell, yes." speaks for itself. MilesMoney can explain it further if desired. I'm sure the community would like to know what is meant. I certainly would. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, Rockwell's quote speaks for itself. Why on earth is it non-neutral to quote him fully and accurately?

Gamaliel, I can't understand why the mention of Rothbard's views by an independent RS (Rockwell) isn't sufficient justification to cite those views. Rothbard was not just an economist but a broad political and social theorist, who attacked established opinion in a host of fields. His opinions of science, including his conspiracy theories regarding, for instance, fluoride, are therefore notable. Steeletrap (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Steeletrap (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a passing, second-hand reference in a small blog entry. We should only discuss his views that are significant, as determined by significant secondary source coverage, and not things we think are significant. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research, as your source makes no explicit connection to this agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard said that contempt for King, whom he demeaned as a "fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style", (see the wiki page for the full quote) should be a "litmus test" for paleo-libertarians. Wrote Rothbard, "Indeed, amidst all the talk in recent years about "litmus tests," it seems to me that there is one excellent litmus test which can set up a clear dividing line between genuine conservatives and neoconservatives, and between paleolibertarians and what we can now call "left-libertarians." And that test is where one stands on "Doctor" King." (1) Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the whole "opposed" parameter in the infobox is being misused. Rothbard's polemics touched a lot of subjects, and people involved with the different subjects. We should not list them simply because he had some negative commentary on them. "Opposed" implies that an on-going tug-o-war had taken place where one side opposed the other. With that in mind, we have Adam Smith improperly included. (E.g., did Smith oppose Rothbard?) Imagine Rothbard had positive commentary about Smith. Would he be influenced by Smith and opposed to Smith? Unless we can have some text which provides a balanced discussion as to how & why opposition existed, we should leave this blank. Finally, please note there was some discussion at Template talk:Infobox economist#Opposed about this parameter. The discussion did not reach a definite conclusion, but the last editor to comment indicated an intention to remove the parameter. (This was not carried out.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

""Opposed" implies that an on-going tug-o-war had taken place where one side opposed the other." -- Srich, please consult an English language dictionary and check your usage. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having the article say that Rothbard opposed MLK should be uncontroversial. Seems to be a clear and well-sourced fact. — goethean 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure we have a clear edit on what Rothbard said about King. The article text reads:

Rothbard again wrote fondly of Malcolm X in 1993, stating that, in contrast to the "fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style, “Dr.” King", Malcolm X "acted white" through use of his intellect and wit. But while he compared Malcolm X's black nationalism favorably to King's integrationism, he ultimately rejected the vision of a "separate black nation", stating "does anyone really believe that ... New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive “foreign aid” from the U.S.A.?"[71]

Part of the problem is loose use of quote marks (double and single). Looking at the source cited (footnote 71) I see the mention of "'foreign aid' from the U.S.A.?" comes before the other material, among other problematic edits.

The actual paragraph about foreign aid says:

A second, and more plausible, form of black nationalism is for a separate black nation in currently existing black areas: a New Africa comprised of Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Detroit, Watts, et al. with its capital the old Washington, D.C., and President Jesse Jackson sitting in the Black House. But then more problems arise. Apart from all the problems of enclaves and access, does anyone really believe that this New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive “foreign aid” from the U.S.A., and strictly limited migration between the two nations? In a pig’s eye.

The paragraph with remarks about King's intelligence and wit reads:

In the last analysis, then, it is not Malcolm’s ideas, militant or not, nationalist or not, that continue to fascinate, and to attract followers. Not at all. On the contrary, it was Malcolm as a person who was the great attraction when alive and still is, thirty years after his death. For Malcolm was indeed unique among black leadership, past and present. He did no shuckin’ and jivin’, he was not a clown like “the Rev.” Al Sharpton, he was not moronic like Ben Hooks or Thurgood Marshall, he did not simply threaten Whitey in a loutish manner like the Black Panthers, he was not a fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style, like “Dr.” King. He stood out like a noble eagle among his confreres. He carried himself with great pride and dignity; his speaking style was incisive and sparkled with intelligence and sardonic wit. In short, his attraction for blacks was and is that he acted white. It is a ridiculous liberal clich that blacks are just like whites but with a different skin color; but in Malcolm’s case, regardless of his formal ideology, it really seemed to be true.

The paragraph about Malcolm X's intelligence and wit reads:

I had the privilege of seeing Malcolm speak on two occasions in the year before his death. It was a delightful experience. His answers to questions were a match for any political leader, for intelligence and wit....

For the moment I'll let editors draw their own conclusions. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Two more comments: First, I see that King is no longer in the infobox. Second, to be clear, there are other portions of the paragraph that are more direct as to what Rothbard thought about King. This was selected because of the disjointed quoting that exists. The Raimondo An Enemy of the State citation is tagged page needed. If we can get cleaner & more specific quotes for verification, the problems may be resolved. 20:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be written based on reliable secondary sources and the extensive use of original writings makes the article biased. For any writer, there is material they wrote that puts them in a poor light, but how important it is should be left to their biographers. TFD (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Rothbard saw himself in opposition to the policies of MLK. — goethean 00:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain why this is significant which requires secondary sourcing. Rothbard opposed many political figures, which is why he set up a third party in the first place, and found people to oppose there too. A list of people he opposed could fill pages. TFD (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were not just political figures Rothbard supported. According to the Reason RS (2), he cited these men as not only influences, but models for paleo-libertarianism As Rothbard's work as political theorist and his contribution of paleo-libertarianism are important parts of his legacy, so too are Duke and McCarthy important influences. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard was a key figure in libertarian politics, and not just in the USA. MilesMoney (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source in Steeletrap's link does not support such a broad interpretation. We cannot put Duke and McCarthy in the infobox under "influences. The cited source says "Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an 'Outreach to the Rednecks,' which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes." So Duke and McCarthy were only models for an initiative which was to target the disaffected. That initiative, "Outreach to the Rednecks", is not described as important or even whether it was ever launched. If it was not important then we should not be talking about it at all. Or we should find a source that says why it was never launched. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? Because it sounds like you haven't. The subsequent paragraphs detail the content of the (very much existing) outreach program, and its relationship with the 1988 libertarian presidential ticket. — goethean 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I pointed to you as a model for how I should behave on Wikipedia, then it would be fair to summarize this as you being an influence upon me. MilesMoney (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source does not say that the "Outreach to the Rednecks" initiative was followed. It says that unnamed efforts were made to get more followers of libertarianism. These unnamed efforts are not tied to Duke or McCarthy as a model. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true.

The populist outreach program centered on tax reduction, abolition of welfare, elimination of "the entire 'civil rights' structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American," and a police crackdown on "street criminals." "Cops must be unleashed," Rothbard wrote, "and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error." While they're at it, they should "clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" To seal the deal with social conservatives, Rothbard urged a federalist compromise in their direction on "pornography, prostitution, or abortion." And because grassroots organizing is "plodding and boring," this new paleo coalition would need to be kick-started by "high-level, preferably presidential, political campaigns."

The program clearly existed. — goethean 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Binksternet. Rothbard planned to copy their tactics, not their policies, although the coalition would promote some of the same policies they did. Also, he would have been aware that McCarthy and Duke did not invent right-wing populism, but that it had deep roots in U.S. history. Goethean is correct though that the tactic was followed by supporting Buchanan in 1992. TFD (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...Rothbard adopted McCarthy's and Duke's tactics, but was not influenced by them? Does that make sense? — goethean 18:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not one bit. TFD just admitted that Rothbard was influenced by Duke's populist tactics and would support some of the same policies. I don't see how they can say that and then end up agreeing with Bink. MilesMoney (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because McCarthy and Duke did not invent those tactics, they can be traced back to Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. McCarthy and Duke were merely two recent examples with which readers would be familiar. Odd he did not mention George Wallace. Rothbard's reference to right-wing populism makes it clear he was aware that it did not begin with McCarthy and Duke. In fact it has continued with Pat Robertson, Ross Perot and the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I say I'm influenced by Ayn Rand's libertarianism, would it be a counter-argument for you to say that she didn't invent libertarianism or that it continued to develop even after her death? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your reasoning. Please don't take it as a personal attack; I'm genuinely puzzled and confused. MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The influences that are relevant for the infobox will be the typical academic influence, not everything or everyone the subject has ever been influenced by. David Duke and Joe McCarthy are clearly not relevant in this context. Iselilja (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would only make sense if Rothbard's notability were limited to economics, not politics. MilesMoney (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the people listed should be limited what those which are deemed by some to be "typical academic influence". The Nietzsche article, for example, has Richard Wagner listed as an influence. Is that "typical academic influence"? — goethean 20:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Rothbard's January 1992 article. He does not say that Duke and McCarthy were influences but says they were right-wing populists. (He is btw referring to Duke's campaign in Louisiana, not his earlier leadership of the Klan.) And the lesson he learns from them is that the establishment opposes right-wing populism. Also, we should not be using opinion pieces as sources for facts, per "reliable sources". TFD (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard basically endorses Duke's entire political program, by saying that there is "nothing" in it paleo-libertarians cannot support. He specifically notes that Duke's call for 'equal rights for whites' is something paleo-libertarians should support. It is a full-throated embrace of Duke's substance, not just his style. Read the part on Duke on Rothbard's wiki page and the cited articles. Steeletrap (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He said, "It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleo-conservatives or paleo-libertarians....And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. Indeed even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point." That does not mean that he recommends adopting Duke's program - Duke adopted his program. Rothbard enumerated Duke's program as "lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites...." Can you tell me which of these views Rothbard did not already hold, but adopted due to Duke's influence? TFD (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just protected this for one week due to the ongoing edit warring. (At this rate, all libertarian articles will end up permanently full protected.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time in managing the disputes. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I know you meant that off-hand, please don't say that about all libertarian articles! Through a lot of effort, compromise, accommodation of all strands, self-mediation, and a cadre of good "in the middle" and expert editors, the main libertarian articles are in pretty good shape with respect to conflict. The main article was in flames 3 years ago and many have bled to make this progression. We hope to keep it that way! The libertarian battles seem to be on individual people and organization articles. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you and Phoenix and Winslow have been doing lots of great work. — goethean 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have not been active at any of those. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is good to hear. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]