Talk:Murray Rothbard

Template:WP1.0

Holocaust denial

Why are we using Kevin D. Williamson's editorial in the National Review[1] as a source for this article?[2] This is a writer who wonders about Obama's birth certificate. TFD (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

[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)

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

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

Why is that even in there? Rothbard has been accused of being everything nasty under the sun (except being Jewish, which is actually true). Maybe Rothbard was a pedophile too, I'm sure there accusations along that line can be found. As he was mainly writing polemical articles, this is to be expected. I don't see the relevance of upgrading the "Holocaust denier" accusation to first level status. 2001:7E8:C625:6A01:221:6BFF:FE0C:2084 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Many of the most serious so-called accusations, such as his admiration for David Duke's political platform, come from simply directly quoting the man's own published words. — goethean 15:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Biases

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)

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

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)

I also agree with this assessment. Steeletrap and SPECIFICO are pretty clearly coming from an anti-Rothbard viewpoint. This article is clearly a distortion of a man's life and work. As to some specific points. Whether or not he was an important figure or made clear important contributions to so called "mainstream" economics is of no consequence to that fact that that he is quite clearly a huge influence and maybe one of the most notable economists in the Austrian tradition. All of the sources from LVMI are valid to this point because they (the institute) are currently the authority in the Austrian school of economics. Duke and McCarthy are barely footnotes in a tradition of old right populism that Rothbard has referenced many times and quite clearly is influenced by. So to say that Rothbard is influenced by Duke and McCarthy because in one article of thousands he agrees with the tactics they employed to get across their message to the "red necks" is a gross distortion. If we were to take such a small agreement with a person to mean that they should be listed among their influences everyone's list would be a mile long. There are probably hundreds of people that were significantly more influential than these two. So this combined with the emphasis on Rothbard's relatively small body of work about anything race related is used to paint a man who was anything but a racist as a minority hating white supremacist. He said some controversial thing about the civil rights movement and Dr. King but that was not his most important contribution or characteristic of the vast majority of his work. Where is the information on power elite analysis, monetary policy, monetary theory, the gold standard, how an anarcho-capitalist society would function, and many other topics he wrote about extensively? Why are the founders of the austrian school such as Carl Menger not on his influence list? What about H.L. Mencken a man he frequently cites as the person who most influenced his writing style and also influenced him on many other ideas. I don't mind having a section on his controversial ideas about race and prominent civil rights leaders, the rights of children, his ideas on abortion, or the treatment of criminal suspects. But these two editors are taking it beyond that level to remove valid information about Rothbard and overemphasize the importance of these idea in the context of his much larger body of work. This is a terrible distortion of Rothbard. The page should be reverted to an earlier version before the edits of SPECIFICO and Steeletrap. If they can add information they think is relevant about Rothbard such as his controversial views and quotes or information from his critics without removing relevant and sourced material they don't happen to agree with then fine. If not I think they should be banned from editing the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.82.54 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

response

1. Please discuss content, not editors. 2. You state, " All of the sources from LVMI are valid to this point because they (the institute) are currently the authority in the Austrian school of economics." I know that there are people who hold this opinion, including some of the editors here, however you should know that there are others -- in fact a plurality, I believe -- who do not believe that vMI is a significant voice or authority in Austrian Economics. Most economists, in my opinion, would state that the economists at George Mason University, Cato Institute, New York University, and elsewhere represent the vital core of current Austrian thought and that the vMI group is marginal at best. 3. Be that as it may, all we can do as editors here is to collate and paraphrase what WP:RS sources say. Rather than attack other editors and their contributions here, please familiarize yourself with WP policy and offer your own contributions consistent with community norms here. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I think that about 95% of 70.189....'s comment is that some are seeking to use an unsuitable and unusual standard to include Duke and McCarthy as influences. (BTW I agree with 70.189 on that). And that going through such a "reach" to include publicly reviled figures as influences might raise some concerns of bias. But your response ignores / does not respond to the 95% and instead is just about finding issues with the other 5%. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct. That's because I have no opinion as to the infobox concerns but I do wish to encourage Ms. 70/71 to work cooperatively and constructively here. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I'm discussing content. Specifically the content you and Steeletrap have removed in favor of your own views on Rothbard. I'm not going to list every item because I have neither the time or inclination. But basically up until this summer the article was given a GA and had all valid information. [3] My proposal is to go back to that version and let you and Steeletrap add the information you think is valid and is properly sourced. If you don't agree to this it seems obvious you have an agenda besides creating the best page possible for Rothbard and I would think you shouldn't edit this article because of this bias. I have no problem with you or anyone adding unbiased properly sourced material to the page even if it casts Rothbard in a negative light. He had some very controversial positions that many people would not agree with. But the article above had proper influences and people he influenced along with a good representation of his work. As to your point about who is the authority on Austrian Economics. There is a clear direct line of succession for the ideas from Carl Menger to Eugen Böhm von Bawerk to Ludwig von Mises to Rothbard to the Institute and affiliated scholars. There are definately competing lines though Wieser and Hayek but at the very least every Austrian economist would acknowledge that both lines exist. My point being that no one is saying that Rothbard didn't have an great influence on the Austrian School either to its betterment or detriment depending on which faction you side with. So if you want to talk about the above in the article I don't have a problem but to say that he isn't influencial is simply incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.82.54 (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Matt Zwolinski on Rothbard, and the bleedingheartlibertarians website

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

[4] [5] Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Images in article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

 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)

Adding photo of elderly Rothbard

Rothbard

Rothbard in the mid-1950s

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)

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
5. Young Rothbard image in infobox, elderly image in article body

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)
• I agree with alternative 1. The colour photo of the elderly Rothbard is a fine portrait. The photo of the younger is also fine, but he doesn't look in the camera and the photo appears more outdated. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• 1 is my choice. I believe it was the one posted when article was assessed GA. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• 1 is my choice as well. I just skimmed through the article to check to see if there was enough room for one more picture, and there's plenty of room. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• 4 I just noticed this thread. I think the current infobox photo of Rothbard, near death, does him a disservice. In his prime, Rothbard was clearly a man of some vigor and accomplishment. Seeing his image featured up top wall-eyed and breathing through his mouth does not convey the sense of his youthful accomplishments. This was not an old sage for whom a reflective pose might ring true. I favor the young, dramatically-lit portrait for the info box. We already have one shot of MR and Joey looking mellow. That's sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• 5 I think Rothbard is more recognizable in the youthful picture, but I'm not against other pictures in the article body, even ones where he's old. MilesMoney (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• 4 The old picture is not only a disservice but an embarrassment to his legacy. He is panting like a dog who sees a treat, and squinting so much that his right eye looks like a sliver. His facial expression is even worse; his eyes are glazed over and he is clearly disheveled, yet he is smiling broadly in spite of this, like a senile man. This evokes the idea of a weak man suffering from severe obesity and beginning to fall prey to a creeping dementia. Although it was taken when he was just in his late 20s (about a decade before he took his first job), the young picture more accurately and charitably represents the vigorous persona that animated his work. Steeletrap (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• 5 50's Rothbard is sharp. — goethean 21:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Rothbard was just a few years older than Elvis Presley and one recognizes the stark elegance of that era. I've added the photo of the younger more vital-looking Rothbard here for comparison. SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems this discussion has gotten stale. We have the two photos in the article now. IMO the layout is fine as each of them face into the article. At most we might tweak the px numbers or placement. But do we need to keep this discussion open? (E.g., I'd like to post a "resolved" on the ANRFC listing.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking back at this version, I think we still could have copies of two of his books listed, preferably ones with bigger lettering, a bit more interesting than those. Might put some better ones in later. Also I liked File:Blumert_Rockwell_Gordon_Rothbard.jpg and still don't know what those who dislike Rothbard et al would be opposed to that photo of Rothbard and his co-conspirators. But I won't stop you from closing it. Do we have a close template yet? User:Carolmooredc talk 19:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 You already have one notice logged for your attempt to force closure of a WP discussion in which you were an involved editor. This discussion is clearly ongoing and you should resist any temptation to force premature closure. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ethics of Liberty

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

== 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)

Church of Darwinism?

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Why MLK should be listed under thinkers Rothbard "opposed"

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)

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)

""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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

He explicitly referred to opposition to King as a "litmus test" for his school of (paleo) libertarianism. That's staunch opposition. Steeletrap (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but it is beyond our role to read through primary sources and make that type of call. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." (WP:PRIMARY) TFD (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical policy. All reading involves interpretation. — goethean 17:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are saying the WP policy is nonsense. It is what it is. To provide more quotes from PRIMARY, we see "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." and "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." But look at how the policy is not being followed in Murray Rothbard#Race.2C civil rights.2C and .22racialist science.22. We have one secondary source cited who talks about what Rothbard said about Malcolm X & MLK.

Rothbard considered black separatist Malcolm X to be a "great black leader” and integrationist Martin Luther King to be favored by whites because he “was the major restraining force on the developing Negro revolution."[3][page needed]

This single SECONDARY sentence has 3 PRIMARY citations surrounding it. And from this one paragraph we have the section heading that says (in effect) "These are Rothbard's views on race." But are these primary sourced "referenced to a secondary source"? No, they are not. Does Raimondo tell us anything more than what MR thought about race? No, he does not. There is certainly reading involved, and that reading involves interpretation, and when we do our interpretation we must do so in accordance with WP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich Despite the fact that this policy has been explained to you on at least a dozen recent occasions, you continue to mis-cite and mis-state it selectively on various article and project talk pages. We are not allowed to interpret primary sources such as Rothbard's singed US Draft Card, found in the garbage and photographed by a tabloid reporter. We are not allowed to use that primary document to support a claim in WP's voice that Rothbard was a draft protester. But this is not such a "primary source". This is a statement by Rothbard which gives his own opinion. That is a primary source WP:ABOUTSELF and you have cited a policy which does not refer to such sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Specifico, you are wrong. The overall policy about interpreting primary sources applies – and the paragraph about "Race" does not follow policy. (Moreover, I have quoted/stated the policy exactly.) ABOUTSELF is violated in the cited passages because Rothbard has commented about 3rd parties, living and dead. The cited passages say absolutely nothing about Rothbard himself. They are cherry-picked and involve a smidgen of the many subjects (non-Rothbard himself subjects) that Rothbard talked about. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

While you're doing your research, I'm sure you've seen this diagram: [6]. Well, you're in the pink! You cite the wrong policy, but you don't listen when various editors explain that to you. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I'm reading these policies for the first time, and I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Maybe you're reading more into them than what's there. MilesMoney (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the statements above:

• Steeletrap quotes "fraudulent intellectual ..." and "...litmus test...." Where do those quotes come from? Primary sources. And who has interpreted that Rothbard's views are paleo-libertarian? Who says this means Rothbard had "contempt" for King? Who says MR was "staunchly opposed' to MLK? What are the secondary sources that support these interpretations?
• goethean says Rothbard opposed MLK and was opposed to the policies of MLK. Where does that information come from? I gather from primary sources. While "opposition" to King and/or King's policies may be true, secondary sources are needed to support such interpretations.

If Raimondo was the source for these interpretations, then we could use Raimondo. But picking out portions of Rockwell's own PRIMARY writings does not follow policy. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Accurate summarization is not original research, and the subject talking about themselves is an exception to some of the constraints on using primary sources. Look at the original paragraph:

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. And indeed, it should come as no surprise that, as we shall see, there has been an increasing coming together, almost a fusion, of neocons and left-libertarians. In fact, there is now little to distinguish them.

Is the article accurately summarizing this? If yes, then there's little more to discuss. If no, then make a few small changes to increase accuracy. Those are your options. MilesMoney (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Rothbard passage(s) 'quoted' in different places are not ones in which Rothbard is talking about himself. (Can you please provide a citation to the passage you quote above?) If we "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate" the material, we are violating policy. What kind of summary of Rothbard's writing is being presented? A synthesis (not in the WP:SYN sense, but an interpretive claim or analysis) of what he wrote. So even if the summary is accurate, we are violating PRIMARY policy because such summaries must be "referenced to a secondary source". – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this passage prove that Rothbard was an opponent of King? Was it representative of his writings on King? Did Rothbard's views change over time? Were his views on King significant to his views over-all? Your answers are yes, yes, no, yes. My answer is maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe. Another person might say no, no, yes, no. Fortunately there are biographers who are able to examine everything known about Rothbard and draw conclusions. Then there are social scientists who can examine the reception of their views in academic writing and determine which are most broadly accepted. If those sources present direct quotes from Rothbard in their explanation of his views, then it may be appropriate to quote what reliable secondary sources have found significant. Otherwise the discussion page becomes a forum for discussion of Rothbard's views. TFD (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean like Justin Raimondo? MilesMoney (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The article has 99 footnotes. Rothbard is cited in ± 27 of them. Raimondo has a 10 cites. Another secondary source is Gerald Casey's biography, which is cited 4 times. Policy says "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So, yes, like Raimondo, then. Glad we agree. MilesMoney (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sure you will agree that WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS, WP:GEVAL, WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL) is a policy that must be followed. Problem is, as stated above (and below by SpokAnCap (talk · contribs)), too much the article has lost NPOV. Part of this comes from excessive use of the PRIMARY sources. The justification for this excessive use of primary is a "Rothbard said this and we can see it in the primary source, therefore we are justified in putting it into the article!" Problem is, this is not a valid WP justification. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your summary of policy is inaccurate, and your notion of neutrality seems unrelated to neutrality. I don't how your... unique viewpoint can contribute productively to the article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you've been here all this time. Instead of your rote complaints and little punctuation fixes, you could simply add solid RS material to the article. Instead we find you throwing this fruit salad of misinterpreted and misapplied WP policies in all directions, with the occasional insertion of text which turns out to fail verification. You haven't bothered to add content here even while many other editors have taken the time and attention to research the subject and improve the article. I'd also caution you about encouraging "new" editors who arrive with a string of personal attacks and complaints but no improvements to offer. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The policies I have quoted, with 100% accuracy, should be applied here and everywhere. Sadly they are not in this instance. Comments about my contributions to WP over the years have absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. Likewise, personal cautions to me about how I welcome new editors do not help either. (Indeed, the caution denigrated the very first effort that the newbie made!) Rather, these comments only divert this article talk page discussion from its' real purpose, e.g., whether MLK should be listed as an opponent of MR. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why David Duke and Joseph McCarthy should be listed under influences

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rothbard adopted Duke's populist tactics. MilesMoney (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No. McCarthy, Duke, and Rothbard all adopted populist tactics, which have been used in America since the early 1600s. Occupy Wall Street also adopted populist tactics ("We are the 99%"), but it does not mean they were influenced by Duke. TFD (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The cited source does not say explicitly that Duke and McCarthy influenced the drive to gather more libertarians from the disaffected among the working class. It would be a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to make that connection. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection

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)

comments unrelated to page protection
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your time in managing the disputes. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 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) Yeah, you and Phoenix and Winslow have been doing lots of great work. — goethean 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC) They have not been active at any of those. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Really? You two were very tight allies until he was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. — goethean 17:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Geoththean, quit the crap. I either agree or disagree with people on specific items. Despite the fact that it seems to me that every time I see you write it is attempting to throw a punch of some kind, if you write something that I agree with I would support it. This time you really missed relevance by two miles. Not only have I not crossed paths with them on this article, I have not even crossed paths with them or agreed with them on ANY libertarian articles. Sort of ad hominem built on to of ad hominem built upon 2 steps removed irrelevance. You are looking pretty silly. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Plus you inhabit the same planet as Rush Limbaugh, so that means that you are a radical right winger.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Right, I am looking silly, which is why you are upset by my insinuation. — goethean 22:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Oh, that is good to hear. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments about tone of article

I'm a reader of Rothbard and other libertarians (e.g. Mises, Rockwell). On Rothbard, I've read everything from his 1400+ page economic treatise "Man, Economy, and State" to his pamphlets, opinion articles, and even his secular construct on ethics, "The Ethics of Liberty". I've listened to hundreds of hours of lectures from Rothbard and other libertarians. From time to time, I check their Wikis. Over the past 6 months, I've noticed a pattern with the Austro-Libertarian Wikis. Useful, unbiased information has been removed and replaced with highly selective information to portray the target in an extremely negative light. Often, the context is removed from the information to distort the reader's impression. Granted, a cursory, almost obligatory skeleton of their pages are left over, so as not to arise suspicion. The method of vandalism is more sophisticated than getting on the Wiki and writing "Rothbard was a stupid head". Here, the most common assault on the Wikis is "undue weight". Don't believe me? Take a look at the Wikis of Rothbard, Mises, Rockwell, Tom Woods, Thomas Dilorenzo (and others?) etc. Compare them using the "WayBackMachine" ca. 2012. Case and point: Rothbard wrote extensively on other topics such as the gold standard, this was central to his life's work (books, lectures, economic treatises, etc.). There is NO MENTION of the gold standard in this ENTIRE article. Compared this to the minor musings on contemporary American politics Rothbard wrote on "right wing populism". Out of the HUNDREDS of contributions Rothbard made, about 15% of the article is DOMINATED with references to one single uncontroversial article. Another point: Steeletrap is so concerned with adding Duke and Thurmond as "influences of Rothbard" because they like Rothbard believed in lower taxes, etc. Rothbard was an ANARCHIST not some right winger, he founded an ANARCHIST school of thought, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM. Just because he thinks lower taxes and decentralized government are LESS BAD than high taxes and centralized government, and he saw Duke as a contemporary politician who is running on this platform does NOT mean Rothbard was "influenced" by these nobody politicians. Do you honestly believe that Rothard didn't hate taxes etc. until he read a newspaper article on David Duke?SpokAnCap (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

He was both: a right-wing anarchist. MilesMoney (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, the prefix "right" and "left" are misnomers when applied to anarchists. There are only left statists and right statists.SpokAnCap (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpokAnCap, there are such things as left and right Anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarchist communism, and Mutualism are examples of Left-Anarchism, the traditional school of Anarchism which has roots in the early 19th Century. Right wing "Anarcho-Capitalism" is considered by traditional left Anarchists to be a right wing deviant. To say that there are no left/right claimants to the title of Anarchism is incorrect. --DrCruse (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear SpokAn, you're free to add appropriate text to the article, provided it is based on and cited to verifiable WP:RS references. Focus on content and article improvement and do not misrepresent, denigrate, or attack other editors. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, look at this link for example: http://web.archive.org/web/20120405093738/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard. All content was sourced and verifiable, yet INEXPLICABLY REMOVED. I will not waste my time adding content which was removed during a vandalism only to have it removed again by the same vandal. This is vandalism (i.e. "blanking" as defined by Wikipedia guidelines) and violates NPOV. You may not be aware of the situation, I suggest you look more closely.SpokAnCap (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpokAnCap, you bring up several points. Regarding Steeletrap's influence on this and other Austrian School/libertarian economics articles, I agree. However, the proper venue to address the issue would be WP:RFCU, a discussion centered around the activities of just one editor.

You mention the gold standard as not being covered here. The first "good article" version of this biography established March 2007 had no coverage of the gold standard. The article was reassessed (should the GA status be kept?) in July 2009 and the version of the article which was kept at that time contained a section on "Free market money" which covered some of Rothbard's thoughts on the gold standard and on free banking. The same section was still present in December 2011; it was even a bit larger. Specifico cut down that section on June 25–26 then chopped it again on August 2, at which point it was made ridiculously insufficient: one short sentence which failed to represent Rothbard's core point. Even this short section was eventually removed.

Naturally, the article should talk about Rothbard's gold standard stance. The David Gordon biography covers it, the Rockwell book about the gold standard discusses Rothbard's advocate role, the Jesús Huerta de Soto book on bank credit talks about Rothbard's stance, Joseph Thomas Salerno criticizes the Rothbard position in his Money, Sound and Unsound, James Arnt Aune in Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness says Rothbard was the "standard bearer" for the gold standard folks, Gerrit Beine cites Rothbard in his The Gold Standard: Theory, History, and Renaissance, etc. Editors such as Specifico and Steeletrap have been working against sources such as these in their campaign to eliminate as much as possible the influence of Rothbardian economic thought. They have been slowly but carefully eviscerating this article of its strongest arguments, bit by bit. It's kind of like the frog that got boiled to death because each small increase in water temperature was not significant enough for him to recognize the danger. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're correct about the venue to address issues with specific editors. However, I'm new to Wikipedia and the learning curve is quite steep. Apologies if I broke protocol. Regardless, the case in my posts and many others within this talk page is quite clear. Something fishy is going on with the austrolibertarian wikis, and according to Wikipedia guidlines, "blanking" is in fact a form of vandalism. SpokAnCap (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like that. Comparing Murray's "economic thought" to a boiled toad. No argument here. Nice. SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your NPOV is really showing.SpokAnCap (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors are straying from WP:TPYES. "Comment on content, not the contributor." – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard article used to be entirely sourced to Mises co-workers

Before I got on the scene, the article was almost entirely sourced by personal friends of Rothbard's, in terms of "scholars" (many of whom lacked any economics/philosophy education or academic position) at the Institute he founded. These incredibly biased "scholars" usually characterized Rothbard, who had a marginal impact on philosophy and WP:Fringe economics, as being the most important philosopher/economist in U.S. history. While these biased sources are still used, we have noted their connection with Rothbard's Institute and parsed some of the more absurd and redundant praise from the piece. We have also added discussion of Rothbard from mainstream, non-connected sources; these sources, which were never mentioned in past, cult-approved versions of this article, usually discussed his work (e.g., his cozying up to Holocaust Denier "historians" of WWII) in a negative light. In fact, virtually all the mainstream sources I've found appear to consider him to be either incompetent or dishonest as a scholar. Our job on Wikipedia is to accurately represent the reception of Rothbard's ideas, with special emphasis on how Rothbard was received by mainstream, independent sources. I'm proud to have played a role in doing that. Steeletrap (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Citing "mainstream" sources is not the issue. There is nothing wrong with citing "mainstream" sources, however this may be difficult since Rothbard was largely ignored by the mainstream. The issue here is "blanking" type vandalism and over emphasis of trivial works in favor or works which to the casual reader may portray an incorrect image of Rothbard. I've noticed the hostile editors have no qualms citing mises.org and Lew Rockwell when quotes from these articles are used to portray Rothbard negatively. Albiet, in context there is nothing controversial in these articles which is why the editors seek to trim all quotes from these articles and undo expansion of these quotes. Also, how does an editor expect to avoid citing sources like mises.org when nearly all of Rothbard's work is available free on mises.org? Why is there an aversion to citing Rothbard works in a positive sense in a Wiki about Rothbard? Also, why did the editors feel it necessary to remove all references to the gold standard (ie. free market money)? Rothbard wrote extensively including on this subject in his books: "The Case to a 100% Gold Dollar", "Man, Economy, and State", "America's Great Depression", "The Case Against the Fed", "For a New Liberty", "What Has Government Done to Our Money" and many more lectures and articles. If an editor is so concerned with portraying Rothbard accurately, how can this topic be removed? Take a look at the page history and see which editors felt Rothbard shouldn't be known at all for the gold standard and would rather him being known for writing a single article on David Duke. Tossing around words like "cult" is a last refuge for an editor who knows their intellectual argument is lostSpokAnCap (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing "mainstream" sources, however this may be difficult since Rothbard was largely ignored by the mainstream.

The article must be based on mainstream sources, per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. This is not negotiable. The LvMI may not literally be a religious cult, but the analogy works in a practical sense — it is a group with limited reference to, and with little notice by mainstream economics, as you yourself seem to admit. You are welcome to remove any material from the article that is referenced solely to an LvMI publication. — goethean 22:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpokAnCap, you may see his advocacy of the gold standard as a key attribute, but this is very much the sort of blinkered view-from-within that we'd expect from LvMI publications. From the outside, the mainstream may well find him more notable for defending Duke. We have to reflect the mainstream view, not the LvMI view. This is not negotiable. MilesMoney (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Making absolute statements such as "this is not negotiable" should be based on reality, not wishful thinking. The guideline at WP:NPOV says we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That is, we should be fair to Rothbard's legacy, we should represent him proportionately, and we should shelve any bias as we do so.

If an interested editor were to look around he would find many references to Rothbard's position on gold, for instance in Mark Skousen's book Economic Logic(start on page 412). Skousen is an Austrian economist who was never one of Rothbard's colleagues. Skousen credits a Rothbard book as the spark which started his career in Austrian economics. In his own book he credits Rothbard as "the premier libertarian economist of the 20th century." Skousen devotes several sentences to describe the importance of Rothbard's writings about the gold standard.

This notional interested investigator would also find Thierry Aimar's book, The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination. Aimar writes about Rothbard's position on the gold standard, and cites four of Rothbard's writings on the subject on page 206: 'The Case of Genuine Gold Standard', 1986; 'The Myth of Free Banking in Scotland', 1988; 'Aurophobia: or Free Banking on What Standard', 1992; 'The Present State of Austrian Economics', 1995. Based in France, Aimar is an Austrian economist with no connection to Rothbard's LvMI. Aimar cites Rothbard many times in his book (I counted more than 50), and though he is critical he acknowledges Rothbard's influence. These are only two of the many possible choices. The existence of books such as these punches holes in Steeletrap's assertion that Rothbard was not influential. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Two observations: This article is about Rothbard. Not Mises.org. Discussions pertaining to Mises.org should go on that page. Next, "welcome to remove any material from the article that is referenced solely to an LvMI publication" goes beyond what WP:RS#Context matters says. We evaluate RS via a variety of factors. WP:SCHOLARSHIP has 7 bulleted items that provide guidance in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, you make a convincing case that material on this topic should clearly be in the article. But it looks like the sections previously in this article were entirely sourced to primary or Mises sources, which raises the question of the reliability of those sections, as they could have been cherry picked from those sources. This is why I'd be reluctant to restore any of those sections unless I had more firsthand knowledge of this topic to judge their accuracy and reliability in terms of how they represent Rothbard's work. I would support a section on this topic sourced to secondary sources such as the ones you mention. Gamaliel (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this and other US Right biographies is that mainstream sources have generally ignored them, although they tend to be mentioned in passing in lots of books. I think our best approach is to write short articles and let readers go to their writings if they want to know more. I started two articles, about Willi Schlamm and Kenneth Goff, who both had extensive writings and influence within the Right, because I kept coming across their names. But I could find little about them. TFD (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe several editors have some severe confusion here. I'm not suggesting you have to cite Rothbard's LvMI colleages if they make statements like "Rothbard was awesome and he was the bestest economist ever". What should be cited and summarized is a unbiased summary of Rothbard's work (e.g. for the gold standard). This was on the Wiki until it was slowly destroyed. Since Rothbard's work is available free on mises.org, citing Rothbard's work does not mean we use positive opinion statements from mises.org economists. Here is a mainstream citation http://www.cnbc.com/id/48806186 "Rothbard is the person most responsible for keeping the idea of the gold standard alive during its years of neglect and disrespect by mainstream economists." How is it the mainstream press can cite Rothbard as the person "most responsible for keeping the idea of the gold standard alive", yet his wikipedia editors fail to mention even once anything on the gold standard? In fact, the editors DELETED all references to the gold standard, among other notable works. Also, there is severe hypocrisy when an editor insists on citing LewRockwell.com for a quote on Lew's opinion about Rothbard's views when they can be taken in a negative light. However, for all other citations, Lew Rockwell and the LvMI are anathema. What gives? Can we only cite Lew Rockwell and the LvMI when the context will be interpreted as negative by a casual reader? Also, why are Gary North, Ron Paul, and Hans Hoppe then only ones influenced by Rothbard? Perhaps because these are only individuals who may be known to have said something controversial in their careers? What about Rockwell, Raico, Salerno, Stringham, Tucker, Long, Murphy, Woods, Kinsella, Nozick, Molyneux, Thornton, Horton, Raimondo, DiLorenzo, Huerta de Soto, Block, Higgs, LeFevre? What about Rothbard's intellectual influences he repeatedly cites in his work? What about Aristotle, Aquinas, Böhm-Bawerk, Hazlitt, La Boétie, Burke, Grotius, Chodorov, Hayek, Wilder Lane, Laozi, Locke, Mencken, Menger, Mises, Molinari, Nock, Oppenheimer, Rand, Say, Schumpeter, Spencer, Spooner, Tucker, Turgot, Harper, Nagel, Stigler?

SpokAnCap (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, you are welcome to remove any material from the article which is sourced solely to an LvMI publication. Likewise, you are welcome to add any material to the article which is well-sourced per WP:V and WP:RS and which follows WP:NPOV. — goethean 14:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Spoke, I think you misunderstand the nature of this community. We are strongly discouraged from adding sections solely drawn from primary sources. Primary sources are used, but as a complement to secondary sources. For a good example of this, see the "race, civil rights and racialist science" section, where Rothbard's anti-MLK and pro-"racialist" science views are discussed using primary sources, but are also mentioned in secondary sources. Rothbard did have all of these long works on economics, but if you can't find any mainstream scholar who took it seriously, it's going to be difficult to add a discussion of them to the article. The "old" Wikipedia entry of Rothbard was appallingly biased, and featured massive OR, with basically all of its sourced claims deriving from Mises Institute colleagues and close personal friends. The fact is he is much more well known for his polemics and political theories than his "economics". Steeletrap (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I started writing a response, but it amounted to saying what Steeletrap and goethean had, only not as well. MilesMoney (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you can follow talk page guidelines just like everybody else does. Please do not 'insert' your comments above those of someone else, out of chronological order.

Regarding your assertion that Rothbard is "much more well known for his polemics and political theories" than as an economist, I hold that you have demonstrated no interest in looking for the latter, only an interest in looking for the former. This colors your view. I have repeated brought valid secondary and third-party sources to this talk page but you have never used them. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you really believe that, I recommend that you look for some coverage of his views on economics from sources outside of the LvMI bubble? MilesMoney (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Bink, adding "insert" to comments is a norm of Wikipedia. It allows for direct response to old comments on a thread even after the discussion has continued. (Quite the opposite of what you said, adding "insert" helps other users by letting them now that this comment was made out of the usual chronological order.) Users carolmoore and srich have also done "inserts" on this same talk page alone.

In your partial deletion of another user's post, it is you who violate talk page rules, as well as the code of conduct outlined in WP:Competence. The good news is that I am more than willing to mentor you, especially as regards WP:Competence. Shoot me an email and we can discuss this in private. Steeletrap (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You must not be paying attention. Look again at my posts from 4–5 October and from 23 August. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Everybody has had a chance to see your citations and review your arguments for Rothbard as notable economist. Your sources and your view of Rothbard have not been accepted by most editors here -- in other words, few editors accept your assertion that you've presented valid sources which support your view. If Rothbard were a notable economist there would be many, many citations of and discussions of his work in mainstream peer-reviewed economic publications. When we search for such citations or for Rothbard's own work in such publications, we see sporadic contributions which were sharply criticized and rejected by the community of economists. Murray's documented contributions -- cited by mainstream media and independent parties -- were in other areas: These were, namely, social, political and political polemic and organizing, and the promotion of his anarcho-capitalist and paleo-libertarian movements. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether my citations were actually examined is doubtful. Please select at least one from my posts 4–5 October and comment on some part of it specifically. Your argument about "most editors here" is simply argumentum ad populum, not a rebuttal of what the source says or even a comment on its quality. If someone has an actual observation to make about the content of the sources I brought forward, I will listen to that. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If your view were valid, you'd see many editors commenting here in support of it. But we don't see that. This is not fallacious, ("argumentum ad populum") it's just a fact. That's how WP works. To be frank, you're trying to go beyond your area of competence on matters relating to economics and social theory and it's worth considering whether that can be productive. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, your favorite argument for when you run out of good material: competence. If you were so competent and I was so not-competent, you would have been able to say a few appropriately dismissive things about the sources I brought. You said nothing. Whatever competence you have acquired is not being used here, so that puts you on lesser footing.

Your continued push on the argumentum ad populum lever is not going to engage any gears. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed two weeks ago that you had no comeback to my lengthy 13kb post at the Hoppe talk page, nor did you have anything to say about my subsequent 2kb addition and changes to the article text. This despite your attention to the article regarding other issues. I do precious little article editing in the general topic area because I do not wish to waste my time with research if all my summary prose composition will be reverted. However, if I determine to put some effort into this article, it will be of the same level of work you saw at Hoppe, where there was no question about my competence.

Competence is demonstrated, not claimed or denied by assertion. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly; you need to demonstrate it. Start by picking a single source that you believe we should accept. MilesMoney (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to select any of the sources I brought forward on 4–5 October. After that you can work backward through the long list. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Duking it in

We have a reliable source for Duke being an inspiration to Rothbard. This source is Rothbard, who says:

Therefore, the proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of "right-wing populism," that is: to expose and denounce this unholy alliance, and to call for getting this preppie-underclass-liberal media alliance off the backs of the rest of us: the middle and working classes.

In context, Rothbard is saying that Duke's strategy is the strategy Rothbard and his allies should be taking. I'd call that inspiration. MilesMoney (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Too weak to be called an "influence". I think you and Steeltrap are clearly non-neutral here; you have an agenda to tar Rothbard by association with Duke. I don't see that so much with SPECIFICO; be interested to know what he/she thinks. --Trovatore (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what basis you're offering for your conclusion. MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument made by MilesMoney appears to count as original research. I will repeat my point made above in the former section discussion this, that the "influences" section should primarily be used for the typical academic influences that are widely recognized by researchers of the subject. It's not common to include "influence" sections in infoboxes for politicians for instance. It is also my general view that infoboxes should only contain pretty basic, uncontested information. Things that are in dispute or need nuances or context should be in the article proper, not in the infoboxes. MilesMoney should pay attention to the fact that there was no consensus for inclusion when this was discussed a number of days ago. Starting a new headline does not any consensus make and he should stop edit warring this in without consensus. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research. We need a reliable source putting this connection together. Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We have reliable secondary sources. This Reason article (1) notes that Rothbard cited Duke's "right-wing populism" and political campaigns as a "model" for the paleo-libertarian movement. That's a major influence. Steeletrap (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that influence is clear even from primary sources, so some editors imagine that only primary sources support the existence of influence here. That's simply not the case. MilesMoney (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To include an influence in an infobox, the influence should be widely recognized and discussed in an academic setting; the infoboxes are for noting core feature of the article subect, something that all or the major biography/ies of the subject will mention as important. It shouldn't be based on random articles or sentences that some Wikipedians find. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Reason, not Random. The fact that Rothbard was inspired by Duke's populism is extremely relevant. It is indeed a core feature. MilesMoney (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having Duke in the box. We do not need RS saying verbatim "X was influenced by Y" to put Y in X's infobox. The categories are in the template, for better or for worse, and it's clear that "Rothbard was influenced by Duke" is supported by RS. Anyway why does it matter that Murray took a page from Duke? Why is that of particular concern? Rothbard took an eclectic approach to his writing and to the promotion of his movement. Whereas some writers are original thinkers and others are contributors to an established mainstream tradition, there are those like Rothbard who pick and choose from others' work to cobble together their own statement. Rothbard had a facile mind and was able to assimilate lots of work from a variety of sources and to observe the people and institutions around him. He made good use of what he found in these influences, and with his flair for writing and "controversialist" personality (per RS) he built his movement. His insight into the role of Duke's populist appeal was seminal to the Paleo movement. What's the problem here? I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again. The infobox is for essential and widely recognized facts about a person. Having an infobox about "influence" is not at all a given in the first place - consider the infobox disputes regarding classical music that the ArbCom just had a ruling on, even though the common facts in facts in classic music is generally much more straightforward than "influences" - and non-essential or disputed information shall clearly not be in an infobox. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody can credibly dispute it because the sources are very clear on the matter. We have secondary sources pointing at Rothbard's own words, which are unambiguous. Trying to dispute inclusion on the basis that there's dispute is circular. Essentially, your argument seems to come down to the idea that we shouldn't mention this solely because you don't want us to. This is not particularly persuasive. MilesMoney (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To have reliable sources for a statement is in itself not enough to warrant an inclusion in an infobox. The information must be essential; and for an "influences" section that means be be widely recognized and covered in the major sources on the subject. This is not the case about Murray/Duke. Like I said; the whole "influences" section in the infobox is in itself debatle; if you look at the article of MLK there is no such "influences" infobox and that is in fact commmon for political figures. Nor, is there any influences section in David Duke's article. The "influences" boxes are mostly used for certain academics/artists etc, where influences are extensively covered by academics. The sources you have provided for Murray/Duke are one or two and lightweight in an academic sense (and also questionable as your starting quote here, which is OR). Iselilja (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If I were the one who found this quote, you could claim it's original research. Instead, we found secondary sources that pointed us at it, so we use this quote because it explains Rothbard's views in his own words. This is all perfectly normal.

For example, this mentions Rothbards "infatuation" with Duke and links to a Triple-R pamphlet that is an additional primary source (on page 5).

I'm not going to look at every article on Wikipedia to see how they handle their Influences infobox entry, because I don't need to. We have sources showing that Duke is as much an influence as the five we currently mention. MilesMoney (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If the other that are named as influences are listed on similar shaky ground, then we should remove the whole "influence" section in the infobox. Murray may not have attracted enough scholarly analysis to warrant an "influences" box. Iselilja (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Iselilja. What sort of source do you intend by "scholarly analysis" in this determination? Not all influence is scholarly influence, or am I misunderstanding your point? Clearly, according to RS, Duke and the nascent southern populism changed the course of Rothbard's career and I would say it's to Murray's credit that he grasped the significance of Duke's achievement. Hindsight shows us that Rothbard got in on the ground floor of what's grown to be the Tea Party movement going mainstream in American life. The quick-minded Rothbard was years ahead of others such as Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and even Ron Paul in this regard. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems rather thinly supported. So far we have a secondary source, a magazine article about a different subject (Ron Paul's newsletters) that along the way mentions that Rothbard wrote an essay in which he discussed Duke as having done a good job appealing to a constituency that Rothbard also wanted to reach out to. That seems more like an illustration than an influence. If a Republican political consultant cited Barack Obama's 2008 campaign as a good example of how to get voter turnout, would you then list Obama as one of his "influences"? I wouldn't. The other secondary source is a blog post from the same magazine that links to the same essay by Rothbard. (To be precise, it links to an issue of Rothbards newsletter. If you look for where Duke's name appears, you'll discover it is the same essay that MilesMoney cited at the start of the thread.) None of this supports the idea that Duke "changed the course of Rothbard's career" (in the last three years of his life?) or otherwise constituted a major influence. If that's the extent of it, then I would say the listing should stay out. --RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not researching this very well. For example, page 5 does contain the same essay we talked about before, but as I pointed out, it also contains another mention of Duke in the previous article (which is in support of Buchannan). If you can't put in the time to do the research, your conclusions are of no use to us.

Your analogy is bad. Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform; would the Republican consultant endorse Obama's?

I could go on, but there's literally nothing left standing in your argument that needs to be knocked down. MilesMoney (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that we need more sources, but here's an interesting one: http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

The money quote is:

Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, 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.

Pretty clear, I think. Rothbard modeled his outreach program on Duke's successes. MilesMoney (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To mention someone is not the same as indicating influence. In the article about Buchanan you mention above, it is noted that Duke might run, and it describes Buchanan as a better alternative than Duke. That hardly suggests Duke as an influence. The article cited originally at least frames Duke in positive terms -- and even that isn't enough to say he was an influence. Finding evidence that a person said "X is doing a good job with this thing I want to do" or even "I like X" is not sufficient grounds to list X as an influence for that person. The Reason article says just what I said above: Rothbard used Duke as an illustration of how to do something. Considering that Duke didn't become prominent until Rothbard was in his 50s and had been engaged in political activity for decades, describing Duke as an "influence" isn't very intuitive. I would prefer strong sourcing to overcome that. What we've got so far wouldn't cut it even without that problem. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit there would be to repeating myself, so I'll just point out that your analysis is not compatible with a basic understanding of what the sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And, in the first you are absolutely true. No reason for any of us to repeat the arguments for the upteenth time. We have already discussed this in two large sections and there is no consensus to include Duke. So, time to stop this and find more constructive things to do. There seems in general to have been an incredibly amount of debate on this talk page recently leading to no notable improvement of the article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not suggesting that there's a consensus here to censor material from the article text which is sourced to RS references, are you? I don't see anything controversial here. I do agree infoboxes and other boxes are silly but as Rumsfeld says, we must fight with the army we have. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a disagreement over whether the content of the sources supports the specific claim that would be inserted. That's not censorship; it's a difference of opinion about how to interpret the material. --RL0919 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement without cause has little relevance. MilesMoney (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we agree to remove all the infobox influences, influenced and contributions? They're obviously prone to misinterpretation and just this single influence has used up an incommensurate amount of editor attention. Next, we'd need to find RS that supports Rothbard being influenced by Locke, which is dubious. Yes he read him and could toss out a few references. Rothbard bandied about Locke this-and-that, but I'd hardly say that Locke left a deep imprint on Murray's mind. Removing those 3 categories from the box would be fine with me. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit like cutting off a limb because it's itchy. Sure, if these lists are removed, there'll be nothing to argue about. But if the lists are removed, the benefits of having these lists is also lost. I personally find them informative. MilesMoney (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really edit very much on this article, so I'll leave the question of complete removal of these fields to the regulars. I'm not opposed to it. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize, but sometimes questions of influence and opposition are too complex for easy summary. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds correct to me, RL. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten that this was about the economist infobox. Now, whether he ought to have an economist infobox is perhaps debatable, but if we have one, then surely the "influences" stuff should be about economics. There is simply no way that any source supports the proposition that Duke influenced Rothbard as an economist; that's obvious and complete nonsense, and I trust that neither Miles nor Steeltrap will embarrass him/herself by saying otherwise.

Then you can say, well, the visible text on the box doesn't say it's about him as an economist, though it says "Austrian School" right up at the top. Taking that tack, it's still the case that the "Field" section lists economic history, economics, political economy, anarchism, and ethics. Certainly Duke is not an influence on Rothbard's view on any of the first four. The only one that's even worth discussing is "ethics". I would need to see a very strong source for the claim that Duke influenced Rothbard's views on ethics. The arguments that have been given support, at most, the claim that Duke influenced Rothbard on political strategy, and I don't really think Rothbard is especially notable as a political strategist. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Trovatore for sorting this out with clear thoughts. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

None of the figures under influences/influenced/opposed have anything to do with Rothbard's work as an "economist." Even the economists mentioned, rather than contributing to Rothbard's work/research as an economist, would be better described as objects of moral/political inspiration (whether positive, in the case of Locke, or negative, in he case of Keynes). Duke is a very organic fit on the influences list. Rothbard endorsed his entire political platform and cited him as a model for paleolibertarianism. Steeletrap (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason why an economist cannot be heavily influenced by a non-economist, such as Gandhi, or Thoreau, or Jesus, for example, and there's no good reason why such figures, if they are influential on a figure's thought, should not be listed in the infobox. As I've mentioned before, Wagner, the composer, is listed as an influence on the philosopher Nietzsche (correctly so), as well as are several poets. That said, I think that the sourcing is weak for adding David Duke as a primary influence on Rothbard. — goethean 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what might be the best way forward on this. Why don't we find a more general infobox template, one which does not unduly constrain the summary of MR's diverse contributions. I think that the point raised by Trovatore -- that the reader neither knows nor cares about the limitations of the template -- is key here. There's no reason not to include the full set of influences merely because, e.g. "economic history" is among MR's fields. We also list Historical Revisionism and Political Theory. Duke's influence is consistent with those entries. Trovatore, it's not political strategy, it's the strategy Duke and Rothbard used to build their constituencies of supporters, donors, advocates, and acolytes. Rothbard was among other things a promoter and he used Duke's strategy to promote his movement. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Friends, I understand your concerns. I contend that Duke (both substantively and stylistically) was a seminal influence on paleo-libertarianism, which was a crucial part of Rothbard's legacy (the RS calls him a "Model" for pale-libertarian outreach). However, I understand your concern with the inclusion of Duke in the infobox, since he did not inform or influence Murray's work as an "economist." However, nor did most of the other influences listed there. I think the original mistake was using the "economist" infobox to characterize the work of a guy who, while holding a Ph.D in econ, is notable for political polemics, theorizing and strategizing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly right. What we need is different infobox. MilesMoney (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am currently looking at Wikipedia's list of infoboxes (1) to find a better fit, and recommend you all do the same. A preliminary possibility for Rothbard and many of his friends and co-workers is the "organization" infobox (2), which would note Murray's affiliation with and work for the Mises Institute. This would be a great fit for many so called "Austrian economists" who have no standing in academia and are known only for books and lectures they've done for the Mises Institute. Still, I'm open to other, better ideas. Steeletrap (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox philosopher. — goethean 22:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox writer -- nice and simple. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The substantive problem here is the claim that "Duke [...] was a seminal influence on paleo-Libertarianism". Though I have no great sympathy for paleo, I think that's going too far. The sources that have been adduced talk about outreach strategy, which is misleading if you use that to count "influence" because the article is not primarily about Rothbard as a strategist, and one throw-away line about how there was nothing objectionable in one particular iteration of Duke's platform, which sounds mostly like Rothbard being a shit-stirrer and not an endorsement of his views in general. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard was, first and foremost, an evangelist for his brand of politics. Duke showed him how to reach the people with his message. MilesMoney (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The philosopher one fits pretty well. MilesMoney (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Trovatore - I'd state things a bit differently. I don't think Rothbard of the 1980s and 1990s had his views and then saw Duke as a model of promotion. I think Rothbard needed a base for himself after he was unable to sustain his relationship with his sponsors, the Kochs and Cato Institute. Rothbard, like Nixon before him and countless others, saw an opportunity in the disaffected, angry Southern constituency after Duke demonstrated how much support could be garnered by pleasing this group. Rothbard then re-worked his statements and theories to fit what Duke demonstrated would resonate with this emerging power base. So it's not that Rothbard sat in the Ivory Tower, struggled with his theory and then sought ways to publicize it. What RS tell us is that Rothbard the controversialist sought to sustain himself by cobbling together what appears to be scholarship by rehashing bits and pieces of rhetoric which he had reason to believe would advance his self-promotion. That's well documented throughout his career, starting with his courting of the Volker Fund. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine yarn but you have no reliable sources to support it. We cannot have it in the article because of the WP:No original research policy which is not up for debate. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing economist infobox

Rothbard clearly was an economist in the sense that he had a Ph.D in econ and taught economics (very low profile) institutions. But he is notable for his work as a libertarian and anarchist, not as a social scientist. Indeed, there is a tiny amount of RS material (and by "RS" I don't mean individuals employed by Rothbard's Mises Institute) on his work in mainstream economics, and the little we have is scathing, often ridiculing criticism. Therefore, I propose that we delete the "economist" infobox altogether, while noting that Rothbard made a living teaching econ and had a Ph.D. from Columbia. Steeletrap (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth finding a more suitable infobox template for MR, who was an author and promoter aka "controversialist" per RS."Author" might work. There's always "person" While we're at it remember the section on photos of MR is still open for comments mid-page on this page. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

He's important as a promoter of von Mises' strain of Austrianism, but not particularly for his own work in economics. He is, in general, more important as author, promoter and controversialist than he is for his day job. MilesMoney (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are the independent reliable sources I have at hand which list Murray Rothbard as primarily an economist.

• Biographical Dictionary of American Economists, Thoemmes, 2006
• Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2003. "Occupation: Economist"
• New York Times, 1995. His obituary is titled "Murray N. Rothbard, Economist And Free-Market Exponent, 68"

This took me two or three minutes to pull together. With effort, I could find many more. Additionally he was a professor of economics at CCNY and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where he was S. J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics. The idea that he was not an economist leaves me dumbfounded. A bad economist, maybe, an obscure economist, perhaps, or maybe one who did little to contribute to his field, but still an economist. Gamaliel (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing against a position you clearly do not understand. The issue is not whether he was an economist, but whether that's the primary source of his notability. MilesMoney (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, these sources identify him "as primarily an economist". Additionally, I noted he held multiple academic positions as an economist. The evidence indicates that he was primarily noted as an economist. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, per RS and article text, Rothbard was an "instructor" at Brooklyn Polytech, not CCNY. Polytech was an engineering school that trained electricians to keep the NY Subways running, etc. At the Butt School his chair, with the naming stipulation, was paid for by a wealthy patron and the funding channeled through the University. Rothbard picked up this model from Mises, whose keep at NYU Business School was paid for by the Volker Fund. "Distinguished" indeed! Compare that to his enormous influence on the anarcho-capitalist movement, his legacy with politicians such as Ron and Rand Paul, and his founding of the libertarian Mises Institute. Economics was not his primary contribution. If it were his main contribution, this article's text would demonstrate that. The lede should reflect the tale of the text. In this case, it's not "economist." SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Authors Online says that he was "City College (now City College of the City University of New York), New York, NY, instructor in economics, 1948-49;" in addition to "Polytechnic Institute of New York, Brooklyn, NY, associate professor, 1966-74, professor of economics, 1974-86;". The lede should reflect reliable, independent sources, which indicate that he was an economist. If the article text does not establish this sufficiently, that is a deficiency of the article text that should be corrected. Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, Rothbard didn't even earn his PhD until 1956. Every first year graduate student in NY gets "instructor" gigs at CCNY, Rutgers, LIU, and the like. It is not an academic position and is entirely irrelevant here. Isn't it correct that the WP lede should reflect the article content? Rothbard is not presented here primarily as an economist. It was called "Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute" not "Polytechnic Institute of New York, Brooklyn, NY". Your source seems dicey. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Having been a college instructor myself, I know that it is in fact an academic position. It doesn't make one an economist by itself, certainly, but it's only irrelevant if he changed jobs after that position. In this case it was clearly the first in a number of academic positions in the field of economics. In regards to Contemporary Authors Online, it is a first rate source, used in thousands of libraries and universities. A small alleged error does not change that. I don't know a damn thing about economics, but it's my day job to know things like this, and I assure you that if you're going to attempt to disqualify my sources from that standpoint, you have no ground to stand on. As for the lede, it should reflect article content when article content is accurate, factually and proportionally. If it is not, then it is the article that must be changed, not the lede. Gamaliel (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you seem to be talking past us. Again, the issue isn't whether he was an economist, but what his primary source of notability is. Our sources show very clearly that it was his libertarian political writing, not his economics. Please speak to this instead of talking about other stuff. MilesMoney (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Above I have addressed this issue clearly and directly. If you don't want me to talk about other stuff, then ask other editors to refrain from bringing those things up in comments directed towards me. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The part that's missing is where you show that he's primarily notable for his academic work in economics as opposed to his political influence. That part doesn't actually exist. MilesMoney (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Economist, per Gamaliel's sources. The NYT obit really says it all: a general readership newspaper defines the man first and foremost as an economist. I care nothing for arguments about what year it was that Rothbard earned his PhD, or what was his academic work. All I care about are reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Why article has more critical than positive evaluations of Rothbard

Users who are (by their admission) uneducated in economics believe the greater weight accorded negative vs positive commentary in the article makes it non-neutral. In fact, it would be a violation of NPOV to present "equal time" to (fringe) pro and (mainstream) anti-Rothbard views. For Rothbard is a WP:Fringe economist whose Misesian methodology rejects the scientific method, and therefore tends to be ridiculed and dismissed by mainstream journals. Giving his primary sources and sources published by the Institute he founded equal weight to RS from peer-reviewed journals would be like giving creationism equal weight to evolutionism in a biology article.

Incidentally, Rothbard's followers agree with me on his fringe status, with Hans-Hermann Hoppe stating that the non-empirical, strictly deductive/a priori "Misesian" approach to economics embraced by Rothbard is regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by all other economists (1) and Walter Block noting that mainstream journals refuse to even engage in discourse with Misesians (2).

However, those who disagree with me (and Rothbard's followers) are encouraged to search for positive evaluations of his contribution to economics. The catch is these have to be from mainstream sources who are not associated with the Mises Institute. Peer reviewed journals are the best place to start, though mainstream pop econ publications such as The Economist are also appropriate. I haven't been able to find any positive reception of Rothbard in mainstream discourse, but I encourage those who take a different view of this matter to look for them and add them to the article. None of the allegedly "biased editors" will object to the addition of pro-Rothbard content, but per WP policy, it has to be from an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I agree with your statement. I have scoured my library and other off-line and online resources to try to find peer-reviewed discussions of Rothbard's writings on economics. There is very little such material to be found. I've added a few, such as the discussion of Rothbard's AER article on equilibrium, but it's slim pickings. We should all consider that for editors with little training in economics who come here out of a general concern for improvement of WP articles in pursuit of NPOV, there's an inherent asymmetry. Without specialized training in economics, the most accessible tasks for such editors is to react to what is already in the article or what others have recently added to the article. But an editor who dislikes or mistrusts new content when added can only challenge it without having the resources or expertise to add different new content which they themselves discover. That process appears to have led to some of the frustration among editors here, for example when editors have found references which they mistakenly believed were RS. I hope that all editors will, to the extent of their interest and ability, bring new RS content to the article. That being said, however, none of us should take it personally if new material is questioned or disputed before the group reaches a consensus to include it. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This obviously is a response to my posting at WP:ANI " 'Extreme editor bias is the issue' with a bunch of WP:ANI and other noticeboard diffs to prove it" which reads in relevant part:

These editors use the fact that many articles have been sourced with too many primary sources as an excuse to search out and add overwhelmingly negative and inflammatory secondary source material. However, they challenge neutral and positive information from other secondary sources with nonsense rationales which one must discuss and often bring to noticeboards, over and over again - a huge disincentive to constructive editing. (See related April to August discussions on the Jesus Huerta de Soto and Murray Rothbard talk pages). Also they misuse the article on links called WP:Walled garden, as well as off-Wikipedia interpretations of the concept, as a means of sabotaging perfectly good WP:RS information from academics who have even the loosest of affiliations with the Mises Institute. See this WP:RSN discussion.) These editors' biased and disruptive edit warring has angered a number of editors who have either dropped out of Wikipedia or, like myself, stopped editing articles where those editors are active..."

Funny we haven't discussed this behavioral guideline yet: Wikipedia:Gaming the system. User:Carolmooredc 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc - Glad to see you agreeing with me/us here. Please add some new RS content. That would be great. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So you agree with the conclusion of my comment on the ANI thread: I believe Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and MilesMoney should be topic banned from all Austrian economics (and libertarianism-related) articles, especially Biographies of living or dead individuals. Great! User:Carolmooredc 00:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Steeletrap continues to ignore the positive accounts of Rothbard that can be found if the desire to find them is present. As well, Steeletrap continues to ignore the accounts which describe Rothbard as being an important figure but which also critique his views. I have pointed out some of the available sources in past threads but Steeletrap appears to have no wish to use them in the article.

More importantly, Steeletrap in this thread is advocating that we approach the biography of one man as if it were an article about various ideologies. This is a misplaced concern. At the ideology articles, the mainstream views should be given priority. However, at the biography of one man, his views should be given priority. An extreme example of this is the David Icke biography which mentions his claim that Queen Elizabeth is a lizard-alien. We would never put such a fringe view into the Queen Elizabeth article, or even the article on the British throne or the royal house, but such fringe views are part and parcel of what makes Icke famous. Here at the Rothbard article we must cover all of those things about him which made him famous. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a RS which states that Murray was famous. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So it was not just Steeletrap who was ignoring my suggested sources in past threads. Here are some prior gems:

• UT Dallas professor Peter Lewin writes that Rothbard is one of the most influential theorists on the concept of the pure time preference theory of interest. Lewin lists Rothbard as being part of a series of important papers starting with Boehme-Bawerk in 1959, Mises in '66, Rothbard in '70, then Fetter in '77. Lewin says that Fetter's paper acknowledged the importance of Rothbard in forming Fetter's own view. See pages 102–3 of Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, ISBN 0203440706
• Karen I. Vaughn is no friend of Rothbard's but she says helped build the new Austrian School in the USA "for several years" after the South Royalton conference but then he split from Kirzner and Lachmann. She says "Rothbard was instrumental in founding the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Review of Austrian Economics..." See page 139 of Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition ISBN 0521637651. On page 93 she says Mises lecturing in New York would not have made much impact except "for two students who were academically talented and who were determined to bring Austrian insights into the [American] public arena: Murray Rothbard and Israel Kirzner." On page 99 she writes about "Rothbard's immense influence" in launching the Austrian revival of the early 1970s, that "Rothbard became a beacon to a host of young undergraduate and graduate students during those rebellious times." On page 113 she writes that Rothbard "dominated" the topic of money in the 1978 conference volume New Directions in Austrian Economics, edited by Louis M. Spadaro.
• Mark Skousen describes Rothbard on page 412 of his book Economic Logic. Skousen casts Rothbard as a very important and influential figure in the study of money and the commercial banking system. Skousen lays it on pretty darn thick, starting with "Rothbard was the premier libertarian economist of the 20th century." He says Rothbard was highly influential as an economist, historian and as a theorist of natural law, a part of the Austrian School. Skousen says Rothbard made important contributions to the understanding of free market economics and the gold standard. With all this praise, you would think Skousen was affiliated with Rothbard's group of cronies, but this turns out not to be the case. Skousen publishes in mainstream presses.
• Thierry Aimar writes that it was Rothbard and Kirzner who inspired a whole new generation of American economists in the Austrian School. Aimar traces the "first" Austrian tradition to scholars such as Menger and Wieser, then a second "neo-Austrian" tradition "organised around the works of Mises and developed by colleagues and successors such as Hayek, Lachmann, Kirzner and Rothbard." Aimar holds Rothbard in the same high regard as Hayek, Lachmann and Kirzner. The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination, ISBN 1781007810

There are more sources than this, some which I have already listed in previous threads, and some which have not yet been brought to this article. Unfortunately, I am short of time and cannot do all the legwork right now. I expect others to pick up the slack. That means you, Steeletrap and Specifico. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There are more sources than this, some which I have already listed in previous threads, and some which have not yet been brought to this article. Unfortunately, I am short of time and cannot do all the legwork right now. I expect others to pick up the slack. That means you, Steeletrap and Specifico. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You do't have time to edit the article, you only have time to post sources and you expect other editors to use your preferred sources (rather than their preferred sources) to write the article. But you do have time to carry on lengthy talk page conversations accusing these editors of violating Wikipedia policy. Here's an idea: why don't you contribute to the article rather than telling other editors which sources they are allowed to use? — goethean 16:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You noticed of course that I said I was short on time right now. I did not say I will never contribute text and references to the article itself. I contributed in that manner on the Hoppe biography. I expect I will work on this article some time in the future. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] If that's the best you can do, I'm disappointed and discouraged. The Vaughn source says Murray was smart and helped popularize the ideas of Mises; this has nothing to do with his substantive contributions to economic research. Skousen is a fringe economist connected to Rothbard's Institute; see, for instance, his lecture condemning mainstream "modern economics" given at the Mises Institute. (1) I also find it strange that despite your insistence that your sources are so superb, that you have never even attempted to add them to this article, despite your spending ample daily time on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Vaughn acknowledges Rothbard's large influence and she makes a point of rebutting a number of his various positions rather than ignoring them. That's the thing; Rothbard's ideas have excited comment even when the comment is negative. Mark Skousen is a notable economist who has commented about Rothbard. You cannot conclude he is too closely connected to the Alabama Misesians because he spoke at one of their conferences. His publishers are various mainstream imprints, not Mises. I have not yet attempted to add them to this article because it needs far more work than that, and I anticipate that the time I spend working on this article will likely be wasted because of trivial reverts and obstructionist arguments. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Binkster - Please just answer the question I asked. Find a RS which says Rothbard was/is famous. We can take it from there if you find one. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You are picking nits. I wrote the word "famous" one time when the whole time I was talking about the importance of Rothbard. You focus on fame when importance is on the table. Why? Because you cannot win an argument against Rothbard's importance but you can win an (unimportant) argument against his fame. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Binkster - Since you're indisposed, I'll just say a little more for you to chew on when you return. You don't understand this subject matter. You've stipulated that, and it shows in every post you make attempting to discuss it. Did you know that Bohm-Bawerk died before World War 1? Did you know that Frank Fetter died some time in the 1940s when Rothbard was still in school? Did you know that the "pure time preference theory of interest" is rejected by virtually all economists today except for the doctrinaire Rothbardian Mises Institute Austrians? You can't come to a project like WP and just google and gargle with the facts. It doesn't work.

@Binkster - Having said that, however, making errors of fact or misunderstanding what you read is not a critical failure. There are many other editors here who can work with and sort through your ideas and suggestions. The critical failure arises when, knowing that your grasp of the subject matter is weak, you persist in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PA directed at other editors. It's no good. If you'd drop the hostile and disruptive behavior, your layman's interest in these subjects could well prove to be helpful. It's really your choice. SPECIFICO talk 04:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. The point here is to show the importance of Rothbard which I have done. You continually try to knock him down, to make his contribution look like a small one. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Asserting that Rothbard heavily influenced a man who died before he was born and a man who who died when Rothbard was in his early 20s does not establish anything other than your (admitted) lack of WP:COMPETENCE with respect to economics. I actually have grown to think you are a smart and competent editor generally, Bink, but you are out of your element here. Declaring this WP:Fringe page non-neutral is a product of your lack of experience on econ. Steeletrap (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Where LvMI fellows are acceptable RS

1) Describing, without evaluating, Murray's views and work on economics. (However, the LvMI fellows' evaluations of Rothbard's views on/contributions to economics (derived from the premise that Rothbard is the most important economist ever) are WP:Fringe and cannot be given equal weight, per WP:NPOV.)

2) Anything related to anarcho-capitalism, including evaluative and descriptive content. They are the mainstream of anarcho-capitalism theory, and are entitled to opine on who does and does not uphold that theory adequately. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe says, "there would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard." Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The guideline appears to be "Fringe theories". If there is not substantial description of his economic theories in mainstream sources, then we should only briefly outline them, based on how historians and sociologists have done. Why can't we just say he promoted an extreme form of economic liberalism, without elaborating it in detail? TFD (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In his book, The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers (M. E. Sharpe, 2009, p. 390), Skousen has a brief section on Rothbard, which may be useful.[7] Because of the publisher, this book meets rs and probably provides as good a summary of Rothbard's economic views as can be found. TFD (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Although it is a former colleague/fellow traveler, it's also an RS, so we can use it. I tried to parse the praise of Rothbard, and the note about his lack of influence on mainstream discourse (/publications/etc), down to one sentence each. But feel free to add more if you think it's necessary. In terms of the substantive economic thought of Rothbard, there is not much in the book, but there is some, which I will add later. Steeletrap (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Noting Barnes' Holocaust Denial

Do any editors object to me describing Barnes as a Holocaust Denier in the "historical revisionism" part? This fits with the broader narrative of the RS, which criticizes Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" of denialism owing to his collaboration on World War II "revisionism" with another denialist (James J. Martin). That Barnes was a denier (and indeed, was known in large part for being a denier ) is a matter of fact and noted by dozens of RS throughout his Wikipedia page; so at a strictly descriptive level, describing him as such is equally well-founded to describing him as a "Columbia University historian." The only reason I am asking rather than being WP:Bold is to avoid erroneous allegations of "bias" by pro-Misesian editors. Steeletrap (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Provided the sources for Rothbard's connection with Barnes also describe Barnes as a holocaust denier. Otherwise it is synthesis. Compare for example saying "x was an admirer of the anti-Semite Winston Churchill." TFD (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I have reverted my addition of this material (at least for the moment) pending further discussion. At the outset, I have to say I disagree with you. Rothbard endorsed Barnes' WWII revisionism, which was rooted in denial of the Holocaust (admiration of Churchill, on the other hand, is typically rooted in his political leadership, not his anti-semitic personal views). Noting that Barnes was a denier is as contextually relevant (and as immune from charges of SYN) as noting he was an historian at Columbia U. The National Review article does not name Barnes specifically (though it does name James Martin), but it criticizes Rothbard for endorsing "World War II revisionism" written by Holocaust deniers. The fact is contextually relevant and as long as we don't use it to draw an unwarranted conclusion (e.g. that Rothbard was/was not a denier), I think it passes the OR test. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I re-read WP:SYNTH and it doesn't seem to support TFD's requirement that the same source that mentions Rothbard and Barnes has to also refer to the historical revisionism as Holocaust denial. There is no question that Barnes' brand of revision was focused on denying the Holocaust and there is no question that Rothbard knew this. There is therefore no synthesis involved. On this basis, I'd be comfortable restoring the phrase, but I'm going to instead wait and allow TFD to respond, hopefully by citing some part of the policy to support the additional requirement. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The synthesis is implicit. As Steeletrap said, "Rothbard endorsed Barnes' WWII revisionism, which was rooted in denial of the Holocaust." That is the point you wish to convey, but it is not in the sources provided. If it is "contextually relevant," the secondary sources should mention it. Barnes' revisionism was wider than holocaust denial and there is no evidence that Rothbard supported holocaust denial. Like Barnes and Pat Buchanan for that matter, he thought the U.S. should have stayed out of the war - Barnes developed that opinion before the holocaust. There is a parallel with modern right-wingers who defend Ernst Nolte. Both were respected scholars whose extreme views later isolated them from the mainstream. Rothbard could be criticized for continuing to associate with Barnes and for writing an obituary that neglected to mention his holocaust denial. But again, we need sources to say that. People who admire Churchill are mostly unaware of his anti-Semitism, although extremists frequently quote his writings on Jews. But why anyone admires him is a matter of judgment, not something for us to determine. TFD (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I disagree with a lot of what you say, given what the National Review sources says about Rothbard. Per the RS, Rothbard's promotion of denier historians served the purpose of denigrating the moral justification for the war, which Rothbard bitterly opposed. I don't think the Churchill analogy works; if I read to see in the article of, say, Newt Gingrich, "he admired Winston Churchill, an anti-Semite", the latter statment wouldn't be synthesis so much as awkward and out of place. The Holocaust denier characterization of Barnes, on the other hand, is very topical and contextually appropriate, given the broad RS criticism of Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" with Holocaust denial. (akin, as I say, to mentioning that he taught at Columbia.)

However, you have raised enough doubt in my mind that I'm going to look for a more specific source prior to proceeding. Better to not to add any info at all than to add (potentially) problematic, policy-violating stuff! Steeletrap (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree about the need for sources to avoid synthesis. Nonetheless, the sources exist:

http://www.anti-semitism.net/holocaust-revisionism/holocaust-controversies-murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.php

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n3p33_Weber.html

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard117.html

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard165.html

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/10/6/202813/847

That should be more than enough. MilesMoney (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. The Institute for Historical Review for example questions the holocaust. If we use it here, it creates a precedent to use it for articles about the holocaust. TFD (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all of them are or contain reliable sources. The IHR is indeed what you say, but that's what makes them reliable for describing their own allies. LewRockwell.com is simply republishing Rothbard's work, which is itself a reliable source on Rothbard's views. And Talk2Action contains a link to a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Writings by allies are not rs if they are not otherwise rs. Hence one of the problems with the article was that too much of it came from the writings of Rothbard allies. None of the sources you present from Rothbard call Barnes a "holocaust denier." Your first source btw is a taken from a posting to a non-rs site, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/. You can go to blogspot.com and create your own blog free and allow anyone to post - it does not make it rs. TFD (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Start with the Ames article, which says:

Under Koch's influence and funding, LeFevre started publishing reams of what libertarians call "historical revisionism"--a euphemism for Holocaust denial propaganda--which the Holocaust Museum notes on its timeline.

Here we have a reliable source equating historical revisionism, which Rothbard endorsed, and Holocaust denial. This removes any synthesis on our part. With the supposed gap bridged, we can now bring in Barnes' own status as a confirmed Holocaust denier. MilesMoney (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your argument, Miles, but I have enough doubt about it to keep Barnes's denial out of it until we find an RS. We probably will be able to find one eventually (the one we currently quote specifically criticizes Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" in Holocaust denial through his praise of "revisionist" (read: denier) James J. Martin. Steeletrap (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Historical revisionism can be a euphemism for holocaust denial, particularly when it is used to described someone's views on the holocaust. OTOH, its strict meaning, which is also widely used, is challenging orthodox views, which is probably what Rothbard meant when he wrote in 1968 that Barnes was "the father and the catalyst for all of World War II revisionism." I believe the term became a euphemism for holocaust denial during the 1980s trials of Keegstra, Zundel and others. TFD (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. For Barnes in particular, denial of the Holocaust and apologism for Nazi war crimes was seminal to revisionism. It's simply implausible that Rothbard wouldn't have known about all this when he broadly and unequivocally endorses Barnes' WWII revisionism. However, I agree with you that we have to find a source that specifically criticizes Rothbard for supporting "historical reviisonist" work characterized by denial. Steeletrap (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, we know for a fact (with reliable sources, naturally) that Barnes' version of "World War II revisionism" is indeed Holocaust denial. And we don't even have to do our own research for this because the link is spelled out in a reliable source. I'm sorry, TFD, but while I usually find your points at least reasonable, the sense of this one eludes me entirely. MilesMoney (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course Rothbard was aware of Barnes' holocaust denial, but that is not what he meant when he used the term "historical revisionism.", which is quite clear from reading the essays that you have linked. Also, the modern meaning of the word would not be used for another decade. See The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies, p. 563: "The IHR [founded 1978] presented itself as an advocate of historical "revisionism," thus appropriating a familiar term for the long-standing and respected practice of questioning and amending accepted historical conclusions in light of new evidence."[8] Barnes revisionism was wider than holocaust denial. He had been known as a leading, and respected, "revisionist" historian since the 1920s when he said that the U.S. should not have entered the First World War. His revisionist view of the Second World War, which he developed before the holocaust, was that the U.S. should not enter the war, although he added holocaust denial after the war ended. See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, with all due respect, you're putting your own original research above our sources. There's no doubt that Rothbard was familiar with Barnes' Holocaust denial when he endorsed the man for historical revisionism. You'd need a reliable source to say otherwise, and you lack any. MilesMoney (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You introduced or (WP:SYN) when you brought in one source that said Rothbard praised revisionism and another that said revisionism was code for holocaust denial. I pointed out the flaw in your OR by showing that Rothbard had written his comments in 1968, while revisionism only became a codeword in 1978. I mentioned that because I assumed you were interested in improving the article following policy. Your responses show you are not and discussion with you is pointless. If you want to continue with this discussion, it is better to take it to WP:NORN or WP:NPOVN. BTW "with due respect" is code for "I do not respect what you said." TFD (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The point I made is that Rothbard knew all about Barnes' Holocaust denial when he endorsed his efforts at historical revisionism. You do not deny this.

Two quick things. First, you wrote "you are not and". I think there's a word missing and I'm not willing to guess. Second, "with all due respect" means that I respect you but your current argument is far below your usual standards. TFD, I've seen you be reasonable so I know you can do it. I'm just asking that you do it for this issue, too. MilesMoney (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Rothbard wrote the effusive introduction to the Spring 1966 Rampart journal issue containing "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," by Barnes, in which he denies gas chambers and casts aspersions on Nazi war crimes. Barnes was already translating Rassinier and talking about Zionist hoaxes by 1964, so Rothbard, learned as he was, clearly knew what he was up to. That bit is WP:Syn, though, so not quit relevant (nor can we include, of course, hearsay from libertarian activist Chris Tame that Rothbard, too, denied the gas chambers). That said, Rothbard unequivocally endorsed "revisionism" -- in both the Charles Beard and Paul Rassinier vein -- in the Rampart intro. The issue also contains another Holocaust-doubting piece by James J. Martin. Not being schooled enough on Wiki policy, is Rothbard endorsing the views relevant, since by the mid-60s this was firmly in denier territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.132.160 (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey anon. First, I want to commend you for your edit; it tells the truth about Barnes, and let's our readership know what the "historical revisionist" work Murray broadly endorsed was. It's simply preposterous to suggest that Murray's unqualified endorsements of Barnes' "revisionism" had nothing whatsoever to do with denial, when that revisionism was defined by denial; he obviously knew about and tacitly approved, or at least had no problem with, his denial. I had to revert it because I didn't see a source. Please find a link with your source and post it on this talk page, and we'll see if we can post it. I would in the meantime suggest reading WP:Syn to illustrate some of the problems with your initial edit. Steeletrap (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

All right, so here's the Summer 1966 Rampart Journal put out by Robert LeFevre on WWII revisionism: http://mises.org/%28S%2841o1x2q4ryodyh2cxfpfov45%29%29/document/4255/ Rothbard's introduction is already cited on the Wiki, but there's no mention of the context in which "The Importance of Revisionism For Our Time" was published -- as an introduction to a highly controversial publication. This 1966 Rampart issue's Barnes article -- prefaced by Rothbard -- is cited in part by the USHMM (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008003), and by noted scholar Deborah Lipstadt, as an example of early Holocaust denial (http://archive.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_deniers_print.asp). Historian Stephen Atkins also mentions Barnes' denialism in another 1966 issue of Rampart (http://books.google.co.th/books?id=M9Uj6u6b-ZIC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=rampart+journal+1966+holocaust+denial&source=bl&ots=CNWmatH9vh&sig=ZzzwNWetdyOp6ar-XeAqPy1ZywE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ME5zUp-IDoOPrQeAmIGgCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=rampart%20journal%201966%20holocaust%20denial&f=false). I think you can make a direct, primary connection that Rothbard was aware of this. In his introduction, Rothbard notes that WWII revisionism is bringing "truth" to a "public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda" -- and that's what much of the issue is devoted to. It explores how "Germanophobia" allegedly embellished Nazi bellicosity and how stories of German brutality are more in the realm of Gruselgeschichte and propaganda like the infamous Bryce Report of the First World War. Barnes talks about "alleged extermination," by gas and observes that "the current Germanophobia is based on the assertion that Hitler and his entourage ordered the murder of six million Jews." Michael Connors claims, among other things, in his Rampart piece that "even though some genuinely impartial tribunal should one day find that national socialist war crimes were fully as brutal and extensive as has been alleged in the most extreme of the most recent charges, it could still be cogently argued that they were at least equaled and possibly surpassed by those of German's enemies." Connor's claims on page 90 that the 1964 Frankfurt Auschwitz trials for crimes "allegedly committed" (note that this is two years after a West German court ruled they were, indeed, committed) were stretched for a year for publicity purposes, and that the lifting on limitation statutes in 1965 West Germany mirrors this. There are other examples, but many of the Journal's over-arching theses weave a tale of Western malfeasance and German victimization. It is this "revisionism" that Rothbard so emphatically endorsed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.132.160 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to a reliable source that makes the same connection you do. BTW Hayek and von Mises were listed as academic advisers on the Rampart's issue, and Charles Koch was a student at Rampart College. I started a new thread below on your edit. TFD (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Anon, I think your source is a bit of a stretch. On WP we typically need independent sources that explicitly draw these connections. You can say "Rothbard wrote the introduction in a journal that published Barnes and Martin." But I think it would be WP:SYN to try to connect Rothbard to the denial presented therein. I wish more secondary sources talked about it, because he obviously was "culpably indulgent" in denial (as NR says), since he knew what Barnes and Martin were about and still fully endorsed their work.

BTW TFD - I don't think the fact that Koch et al were associated with the publication exonerates it. Martin Ames (The Nation, New York Press) presents pretty strong evidence of a Koch connection to the deniers a few decades ago. (I doubt Koch still would indulge such nonsense since Cato is much more mainstream these days, but at one point they were devoted to promoting the ideas of Rothbard, which included crackpot "historical revisionism" whose primary influences were deniers.) The article requires a subscription to read, but a summary can be seen here. (1) Ames' article mentions Koch, Gary North, and LeFevre, but sadly not Rothbard. Steeletrap (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

I'm concerned that this change was mostly bad, and would like it to be explained. MilesMoney (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed to see the qualifier "heterodox economist" removed, when that description is (in one case, literally) supported by numerous RS. The claims in support of these changes are obscurantist and unhelpful (i.e. a vague statement that Rothbard is too "complex" to describe with these terms; never mind that this is blatantly OR, and that we go off of RS in this website). Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Heterodox economist of the Austrian school" is like butter on bacon as we say in Norway. The article about the Austrian school says clearly in the lede that the school of thought is often regarded as heterodox. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Austrian School article says that the school "is" "often" regarded as heterodox. This doesn't imply that all Austrian economists are heterodox. Nor does it imply that the Austrian School was always viewed as heterodox. Moreover, laypeople who read this article are likely not to know the heterodox nature of (much of) the Austrian School. Thus, qualifying Rothbard as "heterodox economist" imparts important information to our readers. Steeletrap (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there are Austrian economists who follow mainstream methodology and publish in academic journals and have no connection with the Rothbard wing of the school. My only concern is whether the average reader, most of whom would have little or no knowledge of economics, would know what "heterodox" means. TFD (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We could also use "fringe." Heterodox is really just a PC way of saying that. Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard did also publish in mainstream and highly esteemed journals like The American Economic Review, The Journal of Finance, The American Economist and so on. Besides, we normally only include the very basic and non-controversial information in the first line. The specifics come further down. You need at least to qualify your sentence about not publishing in mainstraim publications. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Iselilja, can you please provide sources for your claims about Rothbard's publications (outside of mandatory grad school pubs)? We have two high quality RS, which are sympathetic to Rothbard, that describe him as a heterodox economist who refused to publish in the mainstream journals. Steeletrap (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For instance:

• Value Implications of Economic Theory, The American Economist 1973, no 1, p 35
• The Panic of 1819: Contemporary Opinion and Policy, The Journal of Finance, 1960, no 3, p 420, Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Biographical Dictionary of American Economists lists the notable works of Rothbard as:

• Man, Economy and State (1962)
• The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies (1962)
• Power and Market, Government and the Economy (1970)
• America's Great Depression (1973)
• The Essential von Mises (1973)

David Charles Lewis, who wrote the entry about Rothbard in the Biographical Dictionary of American Economists, goes into the most detail about Rothbard's Great Depression book which he says is "Rothbard's most memorable work." He writes: "Most historians regarded America's Great Depression as highly reductionist in its retelling of history. Nevertheless, Rothbard was credited with bringing the interventionist side of Hoover to light."

This is the reference I used to define Rothbard as a libertarian economist. Another label that could be drawn from the Dictionary entry might be "free-market economist". Lewis describes at length how Rothbard was an absolutist in his demand that government give up control of economic measures, and Lewis talks about how Rothbard advocated a return to the gold standard as an essential step toward attaining market freedom. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are links:[9][10] Rothbard obtained a PhD in economics and was published, but he expressed the views for which he is remembered outside academic publishing. Is there anything in these works that has obtained any notice either in academic literature or among Rothbard's followers? Is there anything that leads one to think he was expressing the views that he would later write? TFD (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Iselilja, The American Economist is not The American Economic Review (why were you lumping those publications together?). The former is the publication for undergraduate honors society Omicron Delta Epsilon, for whose journals undergraduates often publish. The fact is that, per sources critical and sympathetic, Rothbard basically refuse to publish in mainstream sources, apart from what was needed to get him through graduate school. Steeletrap (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Murray did also publish in the American Economic Review: Mises' "Human Action": Comment; Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller. In addition he published in American Political Science Review: Communications (1957, co-writer), Political Science Quarterly (book review 1968), Quarterly Journal of Economics The Politics of Political Economists: Comment (1960). And back to the starting point of this discussion about using "heterodox" in the first sentence of the lede: There is a small category named Heterodox economists, but from spot checks, none of these economists are referred to as heterodox in the introduction. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"reply to Mr. Schuller" sounds like a letter to the editor, not the title of a journal article. Steeletrap (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Steele and TFD have covered this quite thoroughly, so I endorse their view. MilesMoney (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any significant Rothbard publication in American Economic Review. The note on Human Action was a comment on a comment on Mises' book. The Journal of Finance citation is three pages from MR's dissertation. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

At least two editors have complained about Bink's latest round of changes, but nobody (including Bink) has offered any sort of explanation here for why the list of fields was removed from the infobox. Is there any? MilesMoney (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppet Solicitation

Note the following page appeared in Economic Policy Journal on September 28, soliciting meatpuppets to this article. Several new Users showed up soon thereafter, in some cases working on content identified in the solicitation. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Several new Users" – who? – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI?

Please take this to relevant noticeboard (COIN) if you want to pursue it. Iselilja (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)]]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been alerted by a fellow editor who has had a longterm editing relationship with User:Carolmooredc, spanning many years, that she may have a WP:COI. Here (1), she refers to Rothbard as "one of her early co-conspirators" and here (2(2) she is described as a former "colleague" of Rothbard's. Per WP:COS, I would kindly remind Carol that "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person (such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." She should disclose that connection. Normally this would of course be none of our business, but per policy, she made it our business by editing the page of her "early co-conspirator" nearly 200 (3) times. Steeletrap (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I don't think that the described connection falls within that description. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC) If Steeletrap thinks it's a problem, bring it to WP:COIN. Otherwise it's just more harassment. Knowing someone 30 years ago (who you later had a falling out with) is hardly a COI. Someone pointing that out in a tweet is nothing. I have lots of criticisms of Rothbard myself, but I don't soapbox about them and I either haven't had those specific criticisms or haven't bothered to bring them here like I haven't bothered to bring a lot of neutral info because of the POV editing steeletrap and specifico have engaged in. For details see: early examples of their POV rants vs. Rothbard related Austrians, plus lots of nasty things they've said here, not to mention the WP:Attack POV of almost all their edits. Extreme POV editors usually are the most destructive.User:Carolmooredc 19:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Carol, thank you for stating that you knew Rothbard and had a falling out with him. Can you please be more specific? This would indeed be unreasonable in normal circumstances, but you are one of the most prolific editors for his Wikipedia page. In entering this community and editing the article, you have forfeited your right not to disclose your connection to Rothbard. Also North, please note that the description is incredibly broad, and refers to any personal connection. Family and co-workers are just examples, and are not meant to be exhaustive (hence the remarkably flexible "some other relationship" example). Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Can you point to the Wikipedia policy that says editors have "forfeited" their "right" to non-disclosure by editing? To me this looks like a supercilious demand. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC) This thread has nothing to do with article improvement. If COI (or POV) is an issue, the concern should be brought up on the WP:ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Actually it belongs at WP:COIN. Of course, one can feel free to look for this new york times article or any current link on "Exchange on Gandhi between Carol Moore and Murray Rothbard", Libertarian Forum, July-August 1983. I think mises.org carries the whole thing. Didn't find in title search. Probably a jpg or something. FYI we collaborated on a couple events in 1980 and then just saw each other every few months at public events in NYC til I left in 1982 for LA. Then just a few more times at national events before he died in 1995. User:Carolmooredc 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisionism

An edit was added with the notation, "edited to clarify that the revisionism Rothbard endorsed from Barnes and other Rampart journal contributers sought to assign greater blame on the Western Allies and downplay the scale and scope of German wartime atrocities."[11] The edits are:

1. "He was influenced by and a champion of early Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes, who by the 1960s was largely discredited in academia on account of his prolific Holocaust denial.
2. "Rothbard endorsed Barnes's revisionism on World War II and the Cold War, which included Barnes's denial of gas chambers and his alternate explanations for American entry into the war, and promoted him as an influence for revisionists."

Only one of the sources used refers to holocaust denial. (International Encyclopedia of Political Science, p. 2310.[12]) It says that Barnes, who began his career in the 1920s, inspired two distinct groups: libertarians, including Rothbard, connected to the LvMI and conspiracy theorists, including Holocaust deniers.

This edit appears to violate both synthesis and neutrality.

TFD (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My mistake on synthesis -- I'm a bit new to all this. Lipstadt and several others (USHMM, Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies) make a distinction between Barnes' WWII revisionism and that of legitimate revisionists, and the latter explicitly connects Barnes with the "illegitimate" bridge between legitimate revisionism and Holocaust denial. Lipstadt notes in 'Denying the Holocaust' that Barnes is a "cult historian" among libertarians whose standing among historians is tarnished because of his revisionism on WWII, which was a form of nascent Holocaust denial. And how is Mark Ames as a RS? His article on Charles Koch and Rampart College, cited earlier but not really touched upon, goes into detail on how Koch and LeFevre sought to dedicate the spring 1966 issue of the Rampart Journal to minimizing Axis war crimes. Unfortunately, it's beyond a paywall. But yeah, broadly speaking I get WP:Syn now and understand it's not appropriate to link Rothbard directly to denialism without an RS explicitly stating as much. However, I feel that it's a relevant part of Rothbard's political career that he did, indeed, endorse what are considered by some scholars to be early works of Holocaust denial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) (by 180.183.179.157)

Another policy to learn about is: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Once you realized that this is not usable info, there is no reason to go on and on about what is not usable. Otherwise someone else could go on and on about their opinions on what your wrote, all irrelevant to the article. Please read about and follow policy. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Anon's post did violate policy, but it was made in good faith with a plausible rationale. Speaking of WP guidelines, I would remind Carol not to bite a noob by making erroneous, insulting accusations that s/he is "soapboxing." (TFD certainly isn't biting, but s/he could be friendlier to anon).

Incidentally, anon, Carol misunderstands "Soapbox", which would cover something like speculation about Murray's sex life but not discussion of the work of historians he unequivocally endorse. That stuff is perfect for the talk page, and hopefully we can find more RS that substantiate the connection. (We have some criticizing him for the Martin association but Not Barnes.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I know Newbies can have a long learning curve. You have been here six months and despite multiple editors telling you, wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your view that all economists of a certain class are cranks and therefor you can put most of your efforts into find obscure rants or non-WP:RS criticism of them and making them the focus of their articles. That's against Not a Forum, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc. However, as more and more editors become aware of it, and comment on it, the problem with be solved in one way or another... User:Carolmooredc 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please review WP:Civil and WP:PA and resolve to focus on content, not contributors. Steeletrap (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of a "biased" content I added to the article a few weeks back. "Mark Skousen of Grantham University and the Foundation for Economic Education, a critic of mainstream economics,[40] praises Rothbard as brilliant, his writing style persuasive, his economic arguments nuanced and logically rigorous, and his Misesian methodology sound.[18] However, citing Rothbard's absence of academic publications, Skousen concedes that Rothbard was effectively "outside the discipline" of mainstream economics and that his work "fell on deaf ears" outside his ideological circles." My edit details an economist's effusive praise of Rothbard (who is limited in his connection to LvMI), published in an RS. However, it also notes that this supporter of Rothbard regarded him to be out of the mainstream, and noted his refusal to publish in academic journals. Ditto Hoppe, who says that Rothbard embraced a methodology regarded by the mainstream as "dogmatic and unscientific."

I am "biased" against the non-NPOV and factually false insinuation of many editors that Rothbard was in the mainstream. Old versions of the page misrepresented this, and I'm proud that the content I've added accurately represents it. As to most material being negative, that's simply because most RS responses to Rothbard (excluding non-RS, connected LvMI co-workers) have been very negative. I will of course add any positive (non-coworker) RS to the article you find, as I added the Skousen stuff.

Remember that Wikipedia goes off of mainstream sources. Do you, Carol, really believe that mainstream sources aren't going to tend to be critical of a view that Harry Barnes' "World war II revisionism" is sound, that torture of criminal suspects or letting one's children starve to death is a legitimate expression of property rights, and that economics shouldn't use the scientific method? Steeletrap (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Having read the source this is based on, I have to admit that you wrote an eminently fair, balanced summary. You kept the praise but you also put it in context. It should be lauded on WP:NPOV as a canonical example of how to do it right. MilesMoney (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was watching a Malcolm Gladwell interview and he talked about new ideas being suppressed by the mainstream and I thought of what Steeletrap wrote above. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to suppress new ideas by focusing on every obscure questionable comment a few adherents of the idea have made in order to tarnish and crush the idea itself. But that seems to me to be just what a three editors seem to be doing on these Austrian economics articles. User:Carolmooredc talk 06:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Austrian economics counts as a new idea, and I'm not sure that our policies would favor it even if it did. We're expected to report the mainstream, with proportional coverage of minority views, and little to no coverage of fringe ones. All told, I'm not sure I understand what your point here is. Perhaps you could explain by referencing relevant policy. MilesMoney (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ever read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It does not mean using Self-Published Blog sources to trash people while finding excuses to delete good sources that include lots of material on the topic, like several of the sources mentioned here Murray_Rothbard#cite_note-:4-1 which have not even been mined for their neutral and important info.

One of these days I'll catch up with all my personal work that I fell behind on dealing with extreme pov editing 6 hours a day from April-August, and on and off the last couple weeks, and just put a whole bunch of that kind of material in. And deal with the crackpot material which Rothbard spewed from time to time in an NPOV way, assuming it really is a decent WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc talk 15:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, "Austrian economics" is not unique to the Mises institute. There are Hayekian and Misesian wings of Austrianism, the latter of which is represented at the Mises Institute, and is as fringe as Rothbard's views on history and children's rights. Steeletrap (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I agree on self-published sources. But we don't use those on this page (unless you can't LewRockell.com., which you/the community generally don't). They can however be properly used on WP if written by experts writing about their subject matter. Steeletrap (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The book Holocaust Denial has an interesting section about Barnes (pp. 146-147).[13] Barnes was a respected revisionist historian until he wrote about the Second World War. While he trivialized the holocaust, he did not come out as a deniar until 1966, and denial never became part of Rothbard's thinking. Trivialization otoh is within the mainstream. See for example, The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard. Certainly if one were to write a biography of Rothbard one would analyze his relationship with Barnes and comment on its wisdom and morality. But until someone does that we are restricted by the three pillars of content policy, RS, NOR, and NPOV. TFD (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Deborah Lipstadt book indicates that Barnes was ostracized far earlier than 1966, and engaged in denial (and blatant nazi/Hitler apologetics) starting in the early 1950s. In any case, Rothbard praised Barnes post-1966 (including in the obit) and noted that he was an 'outcast' and rejected by 'virtually all' of his peers. I do agree that we can't add sources talking about his denial unless they explicitly connect it with Rothbard (we have such a source for denier James J. Martin, also praised by Rothbard). But it strains credulity to say he wasn't aware of this or somehow wasn't tacitly approving it by broadly endorsing Barnes' "World War II revisionism". Steeletrap (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lipstadt wrote, "Some of his numerous books and articles...were used as required texts through the 1960s at prestigious American universities, including Harvard and Columbia. Barnes also lectured widely at other universities throughout the United States...." (Denying the Holocaust) She does not say that Barnes promoted holocaust denial before 1966, and says his anti-Semitism "did not generally pervade his articles until the late 1960s". Also, the publication of his article in Rampart "demonstrated the academic community's willingness to regard Barnes' behavior as excusable excess." TFD (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your reading of Lipstadt. Read pages 83-87. It's pretty clear she thinks he was engaged in 'soft' denial and nazi apologism beginning in the 1950s. He had a very long career, and the denial came in the tail end of it. His non-WWII books were used for a time, but he was ostracized soon after he professed his denial openly. Steeletrap (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was quoting directly. Nonetheless his books remained texts at Harvard (which for some reason is held to a lower standard than LvMI) and, according to Lipstadt, he continued to invited to lecture at universities across America. Holocaust trivialization and the rehabilitation of fascism are rife in respectable history. You need to provide a source that comments directly on Rothbard and holocaust denial before drawing the connection in the article. TFD (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, I thought you were disagreeing with Steele, but I'm not so sure anymore. You don't deny that his Nazi apologism started in the 1950's. You don't deny that his non-WWII books were the ones used. You don't deny that he was ostracized once his Holocaust denial was fully out in the open. Instead, you bring up some other things that aren't particularly important. What are you actually getting at here? If you disagree with Steele, I would hope that you would argue against her primary claims or just say you accept them. Otherwise, I'm confused about your goals. MilesMoney (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am saying we cannot take different bits of information and put them together regardless of where sources say they are related because that is synthesis. I also think it is unproductive to spend months trying to add synthesis in order to discredit minor figures when effort could be better spent improving articles about groups and individuals for which extensive sources actually exist. TFD (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not doing any such thing, so you've now brought up yet another argument. I can't keep track. MilesMoney (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify TFD, I agree with you that we need a secondary source tying these things together. Steeletrap (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard's remarks on The Bell Curve

I've removed this (1) material because it's strictly primary sourced. Primary sources are fine to use, but we need an independent (mainstream) RS discussion of Rothbard's (apparently quite positive) views on The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. I encourage people who want to re-add the section to find an RS first. Steeletrap (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Do you know whether that book had a lasting influence or was it just a topic of conversation that died out? How was it received in mainstream academic circles? SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The book is actually quite famous and has had a lasting influence in terms of academic responses, even if most have been critical. The book's central thesis is that genetic determinism plays a -- perhaps the -- seminal role in personal success. The most controversial part -- which Rothbard is particularly taken with -- is TBC's application of that genetic determinism to race. They basically said blacks are dumber than whites because of biology.

So yes, it is certainly of note that Rothbard endorsed The Bell Curve. But we need an independent RS discussing this; primary sources alone don't cut it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that MR didn't see fit to publish his views in any mainstream sources, even as others were doing so. Is there no recognized academic or mainstream press which published Rothbard's views or discussion? Let's try to find something. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

While you're welcome to look, we have sources confirming that Rothbard refused to publish in the academic or mainstream press. I can also confirm that The Bell Curve is a big deal. It was very poorly received and very loudly attacked.

What's funny is that its basic premise is true; genetics do play a key role in individual success. Even when you factor out the environment, some people are just better at some things and this is heritable. Where it goes terribly, terribly wrong is in trying to lump individuals into "races", where the latter are defined on a social basis, not a biological one. It's the worst sort of collectivism. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Murray doesn't show any interest in the book whatsoever except as it relates to "race." As to RS for his endorsement of the racist thesis of the Bell Curve (yes, saying blacks are dumber than whites because they're black is racist, even if wrapped in the veneer of "scholarship"), I am having difficulty finding anything. I am glad both of you fellow "biased" editors seem agree with my removal of the material (which has been here for years), based on its being primary-sourced. Steeletrap (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear; this sort of thing needs more than just a primary source. Of course, with a reliable secondary source, the primary one is brought back into the picture. MilesMoney (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Per RS Joey Rothbard, the two vMI and publishing colleagues Murray and Llewellyn compared notes in a morning phone call every day for years. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Historian Michael O'Malley (GMU faculty, interestingly enough) notes in 'Face Value: The Entwined Histories of Money and Race in America' (U Chicago Press, 2012) that "Rothbard's version of libertarianism favored genetic accounts of racial difference and social rank. ... Rothbard praised the book [The Bell Curve] for telling [long Rothbard quote] ... In this line of libertarian thinking, the very existence of racial inequality is itself the sign of freedom." (pg. 207). [14] The next page or so further explores the LvMI and Rothbard's relations with racialist libertarianism. Since this is a work by a professional academic published by a major university press I think it satisfies RS criteria, and we can probably now include Steeltrap's omitted material. The book's preceding pages, especially 206, contain relevant information about Rothbard's views on civil rights that also might warrant including in the article. For example, according to O'Malley, "Rothbard found the idea of freedom for Negroes alarming: they did not understand it properly," and observers that Rothbard's approach to the civil rights movement was "contemptuous and hostile," among other things. --John (the revisionism debate guy)

Thank you John! This will work perfectly, and will provide material for the Mises Institute page as well. I hope you decide to register because you clearly have a lot to offer this community. Steeletrap (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@John (the revisionism debate guy) I second Steeletrap in her invitation. Please considering registering with a username and join the editors here in improving this and other articles which may interest you. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and TFD for all your feedback. Done. AttackTheRivers (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Evolution

This edit removed the section about Rothbard's evolution denialism, with the comment saying, "remove WP:OR interpretation from throw away comment". This does not match the removed material, which quoted Rockwell, a close associate of Rothbard's, on the latter's views regarding evolution. There's no original research involved here; Rockwell just says it outright and we quote him. He's a reliable secondary source, and no other reasons have been offered for removal.

I politely suggest that this change be reverted. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Removed unclear, unsubstantiated sentence on evolution
At this diff removed sentence 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". refed with Lew Rockwell blog entry

• This is the sort of throw a way self-published blog comment I would not find very reliable on this site unless it was substantiated with some writings of Rothbard.
• There are many assertions about the actual processes of evolution that one might be skeptical about without being skeptical that evolution exists and happens, including the speed of evolution, what role genes play, etc. None of them deny evolution happens. So without Rockwell describing just what Rothbard's issues were, preferably with some link to a discussion, this is just a silly inference that is way below the standards of Wikipedia. (Like a lot of material in this article, but this one is particularly annoying.) User:Carolmooredc talk 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, I was under the impression that - per your edit (1) on the Hoppe page (where you also made the mistake of misattributing a quote from Kinsella to Hoppe) -- it is your view that Lew Rockwell dot com blog posts are RS? Perhaps an argument for removing the content exists, but basing it on the fact that it came from the Lewrockwell.com blog is a blatant double-standard on your part, and makes your edits look like an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Incidentally, Rockwell was saying Rothbard's views were the same of Paul's, who outright denies evolution, per the Andrew Sullivan source Rockwell cites. Steeletrap (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This might be relevant. MilesMoney (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if Carol has changed her mind about whether LRC falls is a news site with a blog or a SPS, if it is the latter, Lew's opinion can still be published because he is a recognized, public expert on the thought of dead person Murray Rothbard (per WP:SPS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) Steeletrap unsigned

It's just edit warring to put this back without giving others a chance to opine. I personally don't remember an example of a Rockwell blog entry being used before, as opposed to a thought out article. But as I said, it's just a throw a way comment that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Also note Evolution denialism is total WP:OR since the article Rockwell links to is a reader's comments, not Sullivan. Geez.

Of course, reading quickly through Reed's article "The Metaphysics of Evolution" which Rockwell refers to, I think if anything that would be more like Rothbard's view, skepticism of the orthodoxy that life began randomly. Ever heard of Emergent evolution?? There certainly has been a lot of speculation by scientists about some sort of intelligence being a part of evolution that is hardly against evolution. I barely looked at Reed's other article which Rockwell refers to, but it seems to be more against outlawing ideas than it is about supporting the idea that God the Patriarch created "man" 4000 years ago or whatever creationists believe. (Also note that Henri Berson in Creative Evolution (book) and George_Bernard_Shaw#Religion both wrote about something they called creative evolution, which is a form of emergent evolution. So I would say this is rather pov and shoddy interpretation of what Rockwell is inferring. If it's kept in you would have to talk about what Reed says, but then you really are getting into more OR, even if it may be more factual OR than your not very accurate interpretation. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the text of the article just quotes what Lew said: he said Rothbard's views were "like" Paul's, who denied evolution. Are you suggesting that Rockwell is not an RS for Rothbard's views? Steeletrap (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In order to add Rockwell's views on evolution, we need a reliable third party source that says it is significant to his theories/career. TFD (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this? MilesMoney (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I don't think that's typically the standard of WP. Esp. in a page like this, one non-primary sourced RS mention is typically regarded as sufficient for inclusion in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

One source is all that is required to support anything entered, per rs. However whether something should be entered is a matter of weight. If our approach is to search for every possible negative statement and add it to the article then it will not be neutral. MilesMoney, your source about Rockwell's views on evolution is not about biological evolution. TFD (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm upset that you think we're "searching" for negative statements. We're trying to make sure we have information on all of Rothbard's views on the major issues. It's your opinion -- not shared by Llewellyn Rockwell or Ron Paul, among other people -- that evolution denial is a bad thing. Regarding WP:Weight, the source takes up a total of one sentence. Steeletrap (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

See, I'm not the only person who thinks so. I think the large majority of material you add to Austrian economics related articles is negative or is presented in such way to convey a negative implication, as I've said ad nauseum. Would Steeletrap be willing to go to Dispute Resolution to discuss various examples of Steeletrap's removal of material which others have found problematic to understand why this keeps being an issue? I've suggested elsewhere SPECIFICO's do so regarding his constant removal of appropriate info. These obviously should be discussed at separate times and I'd prefer to start with SPECIFICO since that's easier to discuss. Please reply. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If it had been a major issue for Rothbard then he would have written about him or reliable source would have commented. TFD (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just speculating. Many intellectuals don't make public views that are important to them. If documented by RS (in this case, by Lew Rockwell), these views can still be covered on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Verify what?

This edit adds a "verify source" tag, but it's unclear what needs verifying. Is there some doubt that the article, posted on www.rockwell.com and listing Rockwell in its byline, is by Rockwell? Is there any doubt that it identifies Rothbard as denying evolution? What part needs verification? If none, then the tag should be removed, as it would unduly cast doubt where there is none. MilesMoney (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me break it down. The sentence in question is 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". with the ref: Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr (December 29, 2007). "Ron Paul's 'Evolution Denial'?" LewRockwell.com

• Where does Rockwell say he is defending Ron Paul from Sullivan? The Link Rockwell provides leads to a letter to the editor on evolution denial. He's defending him against a letter to the editor. Got it? User:Carolmooredc talk 23:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. The relevant part is that Rockwell tells us Rothbard denied evolution. The rest is irrelevant and doesn't need to be verified. We could just cut it down to, "According to Rockwell, Rothbard's view was...". MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Rockwell writes: Oh please ([15] to letter to editor). Ron is a scientist, and like the late Murray Rothbard (who, unlike Ron, was not a man of faith), has doubts about the official church of Darwinism. He then links to two Reed articles from which one is supposed to get an idea of what Paul and Rothbard believes. If you read the first Reed article it details some issues that some have with some points of Darwinism which has a whole range of theories and which Reed describes as something of a religion itself. It doesn't say Reed or Rothbard disagrees that evolution happens, just that there may be some points of contention. See the Emergent evolution article. Read Bergson and Shaw on "creative evolution". Doubts about some aspects of Darwinism is not rejection of evolution. Evolutionary theory isn't Stalinism, and discussion of fine points is allowed. In any case, the whole thing is just misinterpretation at best and bull headed WP:OR at worst. User:Carolmooredc talk 23:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask again: what part do you want verified? MilesMoney (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The title is Ron Paul’s ‘Evolution Denial’? Obviously the links to the rest of the article is debunking that, not confirming it. Plus, for the third time, Andrew Sullivan is not mentioned in either the article or the link. Got it?? User:Carolmooredc talk 23:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sullivan is linked to. Saying Sullivan "isn't mentioned" is only true in a tortured technical sense. Sullivan's view on the issues -- and Paul's statements -- are clear. Steeletrap (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? This one links to a letter to the editor. I don't see any link back to an Andrew Sullivan article. Can you provide it? In any case, the whole interpretation of what Rockwell writes is false and either interpretation is just in WP:OR/synth territory. User:Carolmooredc talk 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the Daily Dish blog that is linked to is Sullivan's personal blog (syndicated by the Atlantic at the time, just as Krugman's personal blog is syndicated by the NYT). The characterization "evolution denial" was his; he was using a reader's letter to illustrate that point.

I would be open to a view that LewRockwell.com is generally not a reliable or notable source, if you want to make that argument. But the article doesn't misrepresent Rockwell's statements. Steeletrap (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be accurate now, but not a decent source for any discussion of Rothbard's views on the topic; it's all inference. Rockwell's written longer articles at his website, mostly about himself, that were usable in the past. And some things on Rothbard, if detailed and having some refs, are usable too. But this really is a self-published blog and generally NOT usable unless the expertise is more detailed than this. We'll see what others besides the three of you have to say on the topic. It's still trivial and not fit for the encyclopedia. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The RS analysis is not a black & white/generally reliable v. generally non-reliable process. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. LRC, as a group blog, may be reliable for some items, such as those in which the posters are commenting in their areas of expertise. But it may not be RS if they are commenting on subjects in which they are not published experts. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is: Is Rockwell a reliable source for Rothbard's views. We are not discussing the scientific soundness of Rothbard's views but only whether he held them. Lew Rockwell was Rothbard's closest confidante -- they spoke every day -- and has published dozens of articles about him. He is a reliable source for and recognized authority on the views of Rothbard. One sentence regarding the blog post on evolution doesn't seem to be undue. Steeletrap (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact someone knows something does not make them rs. Skilling and Lay knew each other, so presumably you would have considered them rs for each others' innocence. TFD (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Look TFD, I've tried to work charitably with all of you. I think it's clear from the content I've added (Skousen) and removed (the primary sourced Bell Curve stuf) from the Rothbard article that I'm not out to "get him", but rather out to inform our readers of his RS-sourced views on a host of issues.

Instead of these accusations of bad faith, let's try to break down our disagreement. You say there is undue weight and I disagree, because it only takes up one sentence. You say it is an unreliable source and I disagree. The community (Carol, Srich and Bink included on other occasions, such as the addition of the Stephan Kinsella LewRockwell.com blog post in reply to criticism of Hans-Hermann Hoppe for homophobia) has deemed the LRC blog an RS. We can't selectively apply that judgment only to cases we like.

I am not edit warring. Carol did B, I did R, and now we're doing D. If someone wants to delete the evolution content while we discuss, I'm fine with that. All I want is for my arguments to be examined seriously and charitably. Steeletrap (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts whether Rockwell is qualified to speak of Rothbard's views, but if someone does, the attribution will tip them off. MilesMoney (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me what part of rs you are relying on? TFD (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Activist Women

Steeletrap, did you remove the text which documents MR's remarks referring to Jewish and lesbian activist women? I thought that was well-sourced and captured the tone of his remarks. I do see a mention now of "spinsters" but I hardly think that lesbians are spinsters, and I don't recall seeing that MR used that word. Sorry, I have not followed all the recent edits on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've added the SPLC source which discusses this to the 'civil rights' section. Steeletrap (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think an SPLC article about the LvMI is a good source for the LvMI but question whether it is useful for an article about individuals mentioned, since there is no way to establish the weight the information deserves. TFD (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would typically strongly agree, but here it is used to complement an excellent secondary source whose cited pages are explicitly about Rothbard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

IOW to add material about Rothbard that O'Malley ignores in the section about Rothbard in his book.[16] TFD (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They're clearly referring to the same writing/viewpoints of Rothbard, and just quoting different excerpts, so SPLC is not undue in this context. Steeletrap (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is weight. If we are writing about Churchill we should reflect his career and views according to the weight experts assign to them. However if one believes that the most important thing about him was his essay on the Jews - and there are substantial sources for this - it is possible to turn half the article into that aspect. But it violates weight.

The way to avoid POV is to use reliable sources directly about the subject. TFD (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, one of the most reliable RS we have, a 2012 book published by UChicago press from a George Mason Uniersity Associate Professor of History, makes the decision to emphasize these views about women in the several pages he writes abut Rothbard. This is the same passage the SPLC is talking about. It may be undue in your opinion but it isn't in the opinion of reliable sources. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are adding stuff beyond what the author of the UChicago Press book considered important to Rothbard. If you think that the author failed to explain Rothbard completely then you should write to him. TFD (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at what was added and it seemed to be consistent with and supported by the cited sources. What, in specific, do you object to? MilesMoney (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding WP:ASSERT-language to text which states an opinion

Perhaps I posted the wrong policy when making this edit [17]. My edit summary said WP:CLAIM, but I should have cited WP:ASSERT and/or WP:YESPOV. I was adding "which, according to Chip Berlet, he viewed with disgust." (Italics represent added text.) This edit was reverted. Well, in accordance with WP policy, because the assertion by Berlet is opinion, the "according to" is needed. Comments are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's all just alphabet soup if you can't state any legitimate concerns, the mumbo jumbo doesn't do it for you. And, frankly, if you can state a clear concern you probably don't need to trot out the links all the time. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, in general, I don't think Rich's use of alphabet soup links helps any, because it's rarely clear what, if anything, the cited rules have to do with the matter at hand. Often, the acronym seems to simply replace the word, but has only a coincidental relationship. For example, if I tell you that it will WP:SNOW tomorrow, that has nothing to do with the "snowball clause" essay; it's coincidental. It might seem relevant, but only to someone who's too lazy to check, and that's certainly not something that applies to either of us.

However, the real problem is that Rich doesn't seem to know what an opinion is. The fact that Rothbard viewed child labor laws with disgust is not an opinion. We may choose to attribute this fact as coming from Berlet if we think it's best, but we have no particular reason to do so if Berlet is a reliable source. On the other hand, Rothbard's views on child labor laws themselves constitute an opinion, so we can't just state that these laws are disgusting, only that Rothbard considered them to be.

Neither of these points are particularly complicated, but I feel that I have no choice but to raise them, as they are common issues that Rich's comments face. MilesMoney (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust." This characterization of Rothbard's view is pretty clearly opinion and I'm not sure what this adds to the article. We should just say he was opposed to child labor laws, or quote the original Rothbard essay. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Evident disgust is not an opinion, it's an observation. The key is that it's evident, not merely inferred. The observations of a reliable source may be stated as unattributed fact. We may also choose to attribute it, but not because it's an opinion.

Being opposed to child labor laws is not the same thing as seeing the efforts of "Jewish women" and "top Jewish financiers" to "agitate" as disgusting. Let's stick to what our sources actually say, instead of watering it down. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that we can't divine Rothbard's mental state (unless you are in fact Rothbard, Gamaliel, and know how he truly felt). But that applies to a bazillion things. It's wrongheaded to say that RS can't reasonably ascribe "disgust" (or other subjective mental feelings, such as enthusiasm) to people through observation or reading their written words. Steeletrap (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And that reasonable conclusion is still an opinion, and as such should be attributed to its author. Gamaliel (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained that an observation is not an opinion. If you wish to explain your disagreement, that would be good. Simply expressing it, however, is not helpful. You need to speak in terms of reasoned arguments, not bare conclusions. MilesMoney (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Berlet's writing for the SPLC should be treated in the same way as Skousen's book published by M. E. Sharpe. Steeltrap correctly wrote, "Although it is a former colleague/fellow traveler, it's also an RS, so we can use it. I tried to parse the praise of Rothbard." TFD (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, it seems to me that this is a straightforward characterization of specific statements of Rothbard. Would you also apply your theory of attribution to this article's much more general and ill-defined statements which rely on references which, without a stated rationale or definition, refer to MR as an "economist"? Berlet is a noted journalist in this area and his representation of Rothbard's disgust seems appropriately neutral and objective to me. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why there are long discussion of things that are clear from policy. Wikipedia:RS#Biased_or_opinionated_sources reads: While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

Also, the sources should not be run together like that. It should be clear who said what. This seems like something else we discussed last summer and now it's back. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Berlet is one of the leading experts on right-wing politics in the U.S. However as I have continually said, it is not an issue of rs but of weight. rs determines whether or not a source is reliable, not whether it should be used. If you identify rs about Rothbard and use them for the article then you can avoid all these disputes. The article will not be as negative as you like or as positive as his supporters want, but it will be defendable. TFD (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD after working with you on these pages I have a very substantial respect for your intelligence and level-headedness. That's why I am surprised that you can't even understand where we're coming from on this. Berlet's remarks complement (and indeed, discuss the same passage) as the RS from the GMU historian. Without that RS, it would be undue, but with it, it isn't (just like adding an obscure primary source isn't undue under circumstances where it complements a secondary source that covers the same material). Please explain to me why that analysis doesn't make sense. Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This started off with the observation that ASSERT is needed when we state the opinion of the respected investigative reporter/expert Chip Berlet. But what are we trying to say now? That Rothbard did not like child labor laws? (If so, his own words would suffice.) Or is that Rothbard was disgusted by the fact that Jewish women were agitating for child labor laws? (If that is the point, then how is his disgust pertinent to the article.) There is no controversy about Berlet as RS, as long as we consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. – S. Rich (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, @Srich32977: actually it started with alphabet soup, but that didn't wash so you tried another policy. The problem is that linking is free. If editors here were charged $2 for every policy link, we'd get a lot more accomplished around here. The Berlet supports the GMU source and in the context of the article it's consistent with the portrayal of MR as mid-century controversialist and polemicist par excellence. Rothbard is typical of the controversialist misogynist Jewish intellectual polemicists of mid-20th Century New York City -- Norman Mailer, Paul Goodman... a few dozen of them. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If the article is to have a section or paragraph about MR as a "controversialist misogynist Jewish intellectual polemicist of mid-20th Century New York City", maybe Berlet can be used as one of the experts. I don't disagree that he is RS on many subjects. Let's see how the section develops. (I'm sorry my use of WP:CUTS was confusing to you.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd invest the effort to understand applicable policies, you will not be forced to bob and weave on the talk pages trying to explain yourself out of so many corners and dead ends. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try again. Question: Is Berlet's comment about "evident disgust" or "disgust" an opinion? If so, doesn't ASSERT apply? If he is not stating an opinion, is there consensus to that effect? – S. Rich (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't "try again". Just accept what's already been stated. You are being tendentious. MilesMoney (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative wording Assert

I wish people would just come up with alternative wording - or the diff to removed wording? (FYI -- But two things which are problematic, but not up for debate here are: a)Structuring "Race, gender and civil rights" as an argument; this is not encyclopedic. First you explain what he said in chrono order then you have criticism. Either you integrate criticism in article or you have a criticism section. You don't do both. See [Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_ref-1]] and its linked WP:Criticism essay.)

• And again don't mix up your Berlet criticism with your Michael O'Malley professorial criticism, as if they were equal. Probably the most policy violating of the three issues above. User:Carolmooredc talk 01:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Associate the diffs with policy links and problems in each instance. That's how to resolve this quickly and clearly. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote/reformatted slightly to keep it focused. User:Carolmooredc talk 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User Carolmooredc, you know full well you should not modify your text after another editor has replied. I now have no idea what you're trying to say. If you care to reply to my request for clarification, I will consider whatever you present. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Modifications with notes are appropriate. But since you objected, I just struck overly broad section. Rereading, obviously SRich did not make his comments clear and I'm trying to figure out what their issue is, which seems to be different than mine. I'll just fix my main issue for now and the rest will be dealt with...later... User:Carolmooredc talk 05:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletionism run riot

I put back the non-interventionism section since that was one of his biggest issues. If something needs more sourcing, fine, tag it, discuss on talk. There are lots of sources. But don't blindly remove it. Also, there is a synthesis tag there that I asked to be explained last summer. I got no response at the time. Did I miss a response later on? User:Carolmooredc talk 18:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The section is a disaster and I urge you to undo your reversion. The mention of anti-Zionism is synthesis/OR; this is not necessarily connected to non-interventionism. With the exception of the Gordon material, the rest of the stuff is either non-RS (anti-war.com?) or primary sourced. The Barnes section is synthesis because opposition to World War II doesn't logically equate to non-interventionism. (One can be generally pro-war/hawkish and think WWII was unjust, odd as that view may be.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a section on his anti-war views, I would make it a sub-section of "ethics" or part of the political activism bit. These views, as opposed to his views on criminal justice, children's rights, or anarchy-capitalism, don't appear to have been rigorously formulated or much discussed by RS. Steeletrap (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I’ve started doing more research, in between pushing a deadline. However, your rationale for deleting material was problematic, especially considering past defense of personal blog rants. In order of current refs

• David Gordon: well known authority on rothbard who’s already used
• Joseph R. Stromberg (AfD coming momentarily?) Is an authority on the relevant topics; his writing on a dead person on antiwar.com, a site which at least has editors, unlike personal blog rants, is worth my taking to WP:RSN if you have a problem with it
• Ref to two essays of Rothbard mentioned by Stromberg; have already found independent ref on one of them
• Rothbard’s Harry Elmer Barnes article is used elsewhere without supporting secondary refs.
• Lora and Longton, book good ref on his general views on Israel, allowing at quote from War Guilt in the Middle east”. It’s not like a primary source from Rothbard is setting up a paragraph, like the first paragraph of the shoddy section “Science, evolution and scientism”.

So that’s my analysis of why I talk about “Deletionism Run Riot” - with only a couple reference to really poor referencing elsewhere. But I’ve found a few secondary sources of interest will put in soon. ~~

User:Carolmooredc, Again, for the 4th time in a matter of weeks (with the last example being two days ago on the talk page of paleolibertarianism), you've falsely attributed edits to me. While I did delete the primary-sourced and non-RS material (Stromberg's page doesn't even indicate whether he has ever taught at a college, much less contributes to mainstream academic/foreign policy RS), I never deleted the Gordon material, as you falsely imply. Please understand the difference between "deleting" a reference and moving it from one section of an article to another. Please review the diffs and strike the top ref. (EDIT: Nor did I delete the Lora material; I just moved it to a different section.) Steeletrap (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First I'm beefing up Journalist Stromberg's article as we speak. Second, please do not reinterpret or misrepresent statements - saying deleted from relevant section does not automatically mean deleted from the article. As for other alleged 3, I'm sure the explanations are equally accurate. CM-DC talk 16:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a historian

"Historian", unlike "philosopher" or "theorist", has since the mid to late 20th century come to refer to someone with specific training in history. Per WP's entry for historian "it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline". Rothbard did not publish in mainstream historical journals or contribute to mainstream historical narrative in any substantial way. This erroneous categorization should be removed from the article. Steeletrap (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Conceived in Liberty serves to qualify him as a historian. – S. Rich (talk)

Rothbard's historian credentials come from a number of things he wrote about the history of economic events. The most prominent one was the Great Depression which got Rothbard into the history books.[18] Rothbard's book on the Great Depression has been cited by 499 authors.[19] Another important one was the Panic of 1819 which several observers judge as one of his major works.[20] Rothbard's Panic of 1819 has been cited by 106 authors.[21] In the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Rothbard is characterized as a "libertarian economist, political philosopher, historian, and activist". The "historian" label is prominent. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

He was also a member of the Society of Historians of the Early American Republic. I'm on board with "historian" as well. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction Binksternet, the books you refer to are about (heterodox) economics, not history. Rothbard is not writing historical narratives but advancing economic theories as to why (for example) the Panic of 1819 or Great Depression occurred. (similarly, economists who argue that x, y or z caused the Crash of 2008 are not necessarily "historians" just because they're talking about a past event.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, whatever. Did you bother to notice that the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism lists Rothbard as a historian? You could at least show your sources which describe Rothbard as an unsuccessful historian, or a wannabe historian. If you have no sources just say so and we can shut this discussion down, saving everybody's time. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Other refs found in just a couple minutes of searching:

• Raimondo, which was in the article before that factoid was gutted: Justin Raimondo, An Enemy of the State, Prometheus Books, 2000, p. 54, ISBN 1615922393, 9781615922390
• Skousen bio in his book Economic logic published by Regnerny [22]
• Mark Thorton, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, 2 vols., Southern Economic Journal, July 1, 1996 User:Carolmooredc talk 05:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, two of your three "RS" are long-term friends and co-workers of Rothbard (Raimondo was a close associate for decades, as you well know, and has no academic standing whatsoever). As to the Skousen/Libertarian Encyclopedia sources, those do support "historian" and are worth discussing. But I do not believe they are sufficient to override Rothbard's total lack of contributions to peer-reviewed history journals and academic training in history. Steeletrap (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There is enough history stuff about and by MR to keep the classification as historian. We need not debate the weight of those references that support the classification. Now if there was a revisionist or heterodox classification, that might work, provided we had the RS that supported the description. – S. Rich (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We should not call someone an historian unless that is the way they are normally described. TFD (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The article describes him as an "historical revisionist". And he has history books under his belt. We include categories when the "essential—defining—characteristics" fit. So even though we don't "normally describe" MR as someone who died from a heart attack, his heart attack death allows us to put him in that category. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, to Steeletrap, being an associate of someone does not mean they are automatically not a reliable source. How many times to we have to go to WP:RSN before you get that? See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And you don't mind using them if they have something negative to say.

Again, this is not an academic treatise, it is wikipedia. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. So please stop using inappropriate references to academia to keep out perfectly good WP:RS info. Gosh, I think I'll need to make a chart of all the times these issues have been settled at noticeboards and brought up yet again. And I thought my memory was going at 65!!

The mention of his being a historian being put back in the article is necessary for a complete and accurate article. Whether he needs to be in all those historian categories, is another issue. User:Carolmooredc talk 06:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he probably isn't a historian. We should set the bar high on that. I would like to see the reviews of his works in the history community. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

His most notable history books are: The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies, Columbia University Press, 1962; America's Great Depression, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1973; Conceived in Liberty, (4 vol.), Arlington House Publishers 1975–1979; An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, (2 vol.), Edward Elgar Pub, 1995. I'm sure a few have reviews somewhere on line; the older ones may not. Of course, finding a WP:RS review is one thing; spending four hours fighting to keep it in the article is more daunting and discouraging of a task. He really needs a section with all his most noteworthy books reviewed. User:Carolmooredc talk 07:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a ragbag, isn't it? And don't forget the holocaust denial! Itsmejudith (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

He himself wrote nothing on the topic. That is WP:OR that editors have brought in through guilt by association and "well, barnes wrote something somewhere that some call holocaust denial and Rothbard liked his general historical revisionism and never denounced the alleged "HD", so Rothbard MUST be a holocaust denier." Is that the kind of Encyclopedia we want? If so, let me quit now and organize a march on wikimedia hq User:Carolmooredc talk 08:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction Carol, "The Panic of 1819" (published by Columbia U Press) was Rothbard's doctoral thesis in economics. It (like America's Great Depression and most of the other books people are citing) was not a work of history, revisionist or otherwise. Steeletrap (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Panic of 1819 (book) is still a book, and a book of economic history. Gerald Casey [http://books.google.com/books?id=_ZATAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT65&dq=The+Panic+of+1819+Rothbard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xAh9Uun4E8_nsASgzoKIDg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Panic%20of%201819%20Rothbard&f=false refers to it (p.98 and later) explicitly as a work of economic history and at least one of his seven reviewer infers that. I'm sure other sources can be found, should someone do such a relevant listing in encyclopedia style. User:Carolmooredc talk 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard is listed as a historian in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, as I have pointed out. Other RS which make similar descriptions include:

• Gerard Casey (2013}. Murray Rothbard, editor's "Introduction" to book. "Murray Rothbard was an economist, historian, political and moral philosopher, and legal theoretician."
• Justin Raimondo (2000). An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, page 54]. "...the young Rothbard was now embarked, fully armed, on a remarkable career as a thinker, philosopher, economist, historian, and all-around champion controversialist." On pages 19–21, Raimondo describes how Rothbard is such a complex man to label; he says there are several Rothbard stories – Rothbard the political philosopher, Rothbard the scholar of liberty, Rothbard the theorist of Austrian economics, Rothbard the historian.
• Brian Doherty (2008). Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, Part 64. Doherty says that The Panic of 1819 was Rothbard's history thesis work at Columbia, published years later in 1962. Doherty describes how Rothbard was given a grant to write an exhaustive work on American history. The grant was running out in 1966 when Rothbard had performed a lot of research but little of the writing. Doherty describes Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty as one of his major works in American history.
• Vincent Gaddis (2005). Herbert Hoover, Unemployment, and the Public Sphere: A Conceptual History, page xx. Gaddis gives an overview of the historiography of the 1920s. He says historian Rothbard was a prominent re-interpreter of Hoover's legacy.
• David Gordon, ‎Carl Watner (1986). Murray N. Rothbard: a scholar in defense of freedom, page 14. "A historian, besides possessing the correct theory, must also master the techniques of empirical research. Rothbard passes this test with flying colors. His doctorate was in the field of economic history..."
• Skyler J. Collins (2012). Everything Voluntary: From Politics to Parenting, page 44. "Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher."
• Mark Skousen (2008). Economic Logic, page 412. "Rothbard was a highly influential American economist, historian and natural law theorist belonging to the Austrian School of economics... who helped define modern libertarianism."
• Adrianus Arnoldus Maria van der Linden (1996). A Revolt Against Liberalism: American Radical Historians, 1959-1976, page 58. Linden describes Rothbard as a conservative historian who allied himself with radicals to challenge liberal histories of the New Deal.
• Ronald Lora, ‎William Henry Longton (1999). The Conservative Press in Twentieth-century America, page 373]. "Murray. N. Rothbard is a libertarian economist, political scientist, and historian."
• Daniel S. Dupre, "The Panic of 1819 and the Political Economy of Sectionalism", page 274, chapter 9 in The Economy of Early America: Historical Perspectives & New Directions. Rothbard is listed as one of the few historians who have written about the Panic of 1819.
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe "Murray N. Rothbard – Economics, Science and Liberty" page 238, within the book The Great Austrian Economists. "Furthermore, although first and foremost a theoretician, Rothbard was was also an accomplished historian..."
• Editors of The Austrian Economics Newsletter, 1995, volume 16, page 33. "Murray N. Rothbard, economist, historian, political theorist, and philosopher, died on January 7, 1995."
• Bruce Frohnen, ‎Jeremy Beer, ‎Jeffrey O. Nelson (2006). American conservatism: an encyclopedia, page 750. Rothbard is described as a free-market economist, an ethicist and a historian.
• John F. Welsh (2008). After multiculturalism: the politics of race and the dialectics of liberty, page 62. Rothbard is described as not "merely" an academic economist but also an interdisciplinary scholar and historian. His exemplary historian work is listed as Conceived in Liberty, a four-volume history of the American Revolution.
• Sheldon L. Richman (2001). Ideas on Liberty, volume 51, page 59. "Rothbard (1926-1995), economist, philosopher, historian, and essayist par excellence..."
• Lincoln Review, volume 11, page 33. "Murray N. Rothbard — the eminent economist, historian, and philosopher..."
• I think it is very strange that some here keep trying to make Rothbard seem less influential than he was. Whether you like him or not, Rothbard's reach spanned a handful of fields. He certainly wore the historian hat. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, please don't keep impugning the motives of your colleagues here. You are coming from a very different background than some of the editors whom you repeatedly disparage. That's not grounds to attack them as dishonest or subversive. The list you've posted here doesn't demonstrate that Rothbard was an influential historian. If you believe or would like to investigate whether he was an influential historian, please find citations of his work from mainstream academic or journalistic sources. As I've noted previously -- it's in the nature of WP that we are not vetted for knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. However that doesn't mean that discussions should degenerate into a food fight. The sources you've listed are not mainstream, they are in various ways affiliates of Rothbard -- they do not support the claim you are making. Can you provide independent RS citations for the proposition that MR was an influential historian as defined by WP? SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is sufficient for Wikipedia that there are a few sources, not to mention actual history books, showing that he was a historian. Even the Wiki article recognizes that you don't have to be a professional academic to be one. And given that most academics get so much of their money and approval, thank the heavenly goddess for that. (Even Cato is doing an event about that topic next week.) Again, it's not necessary to have a Master or PhD(s) to edit wikipedia; only to follow its policies created by it's editors, the great majority of whom don't have advanced degrees. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you cannot dismiss all these sources as having some connection to Rothbard, but nice try. For instance, Bruce Frohnen has no connection whatsoever. Even the ones that are close to Rothbard are useful for their view of what were his most important contributions. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to read that you agree with me, Ms. Carolmooredc. Please find some clearcut reference to MR as an historian per WP policy and we can be move forward. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: For about the fifth time you say I agree with you on something when either I clearly don't or you don't specify what. I find it misleading and patronizing. CM-DC talk 03:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't see the publisher for the work you cite. That is a big part of determining whether it's independent RS vs. vanity press, fringe, biased etc. Please provide a full citation and a quote for verification. Thanks. If there are others you think would address the concerns expressed by various editors here, let's look at the same information for those as well. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Gamaliel -- I too am a member of "Society of Historians of the Early American Republic" but I'm not an historian. Do you have further details as to that organization and the extent of Rothbard's involvement with it? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, just saw it listen in an RS about Rothbard and thought it was relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

All the sources for him being an historian appear to be from libertarian publishers. TFD (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Please respond to my request for supporting evidence which would permit us to determine whether the source you found can be used in this context. If you decline to do so, we can't just stipulate that it is RS. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you. I have provided sufficient information to prove my point. You can try to impeach the books and journals using your own resources. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not sufficient to use a search engine to come up with a list and insist that they prove your point. WP requires us to verify information from WP:RS according to policy. You are under no obligation to do so, but the burden in this matter is clearly on you. If you choose not to provide the information, your assertion is rejected. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are forgetting that the "assertion" we are discussing here is Steeletrap's notion that Rothbard is suddenly not a historian. Everyone here was quite happy with Rothbard's historian credentials until Steeletrap decided that it made him look too scholarly. For instance, in January 2012 the article listed Rothbard in the categories of "American historians", "Historians of the United States", "Historians of economic thought" and "Libertarian historians". Same in May 2012, and again in October 2012 right before you got involved. You yourself were evidently satisfied with the categories; they stayed in through May 2013 after quite a lot of editing by you. In July 2013, Steeletrap made some bold changes including the addition of information about Rothbard's importance as a historian—you will note that the longstanding categories are still there. So you see, the historian categories have been accepted by many editors for years. The new change under discussion is about why Rothbard should be removed from those categories. I have successfully shown that Rothbard is quite often listed and discussed as a historian. Others are free to try and locate sources describing Rothbard as a false historian or a defrocked historian. Good luck with that search. (Note that critiques of Rothbard's history works actually count as supporting sources for his "historian" label.) Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If individuals are going to continue to fight mention of him as an historian and relevant categories, we might as well go to the appropriate Noticeboard (I assume WP:NPOVN) to get another opinion. I can't waste my time in fruitless, disruptive arguments when so many refs easily can be provide to the WP:NPOVN board. Please state your preference: allow the info in or go to the noticeboard. Thanks. CM-DC talk 18:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The correct response is to show that we have reliable sources to support the claimed status. If not, then SPECIFICO is doing us all a favor by pointing out a long-standing error in the article. Given BLP, we can't let such errors stand.

You accuse SPECIFICO of wanting to make Rothbard look less scholarly, but I don't see any such thing. Instead, I see Rothbard's allies and followers trying hard to make him look more scholarly. As always, we have to find reliable sources, which in this case means excluding biased and self-serving ones, and we have to accept what they say. MilesMoney (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right. A listing of the sources calling him a historian should be presented to WP:RSN and see what they think. CM-DC talk 19:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is true that "the correct response is to show that we have reliable sources to support the claimed status." I have successfully accomplished that. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You've clearly convinced yourself, but that's not really enough. Unfortunately, the citations seem to come from sources that are known to be biased, hence they are unreliable for this matter. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Idea: would "economic historian" be an acceptable compromise to all parties? Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN Notice

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_Murray_Rothbard_as_an_historian. CM-DC talk 19:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not use numbers for ref names

I've brought this up before among some of same editors Footnotes: using a source more than once reads:

Names for footnotes and groups must follow these rules:...Names may not be purely numeric...

It would be nice if the editor who did it would give the ref names proper names so others do not have to correct it. Read the guidelines. Write down the link on a cheat sheet for future reference. User:Carolmooredc talk 06:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard as polymath

This absurd refusal to admit Rothbard was an historian despite now a dozen plus references to that fact listed at the WP:Reliable source noticeboard, reminded me that I have heard him called a polymath as well. Doing a books google search I found "Murray+Rothbard"+polymath&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 several solid sources saying just that. I'm sure we'll have to end up bringing them to WP:RSN too. Sigh... User:Carolmooredc talk 02:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Google isn't really a tool for scholarly or even useful research. Googling Rothbard+polymath returns about 30,000 results. Rothbard+idiot gives around 800,000. Rothbard+elephant over 1,000,000. Finally: Rothbard+colonoscopy, 206,000 google entries. You'll need to examine and evaluate the sources. If only research were as simple as a web search. There'd really be no need for an encyclopedia, would there? SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I believe "polymath" would be a good choice for this article if the "historian" and "economist" terms were removed. I could get comfortable with "MR was a polymath libertarian theorist and father of anarcho-capitalism." We could see whether consensus might favor that description. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Searching google is like going to the library and seeing what books pop up under various broader categories. Except perhaps it takes great intelligence and discrimination to figure out what is WP:RS useful and what is not. Note that there are lots of other sources to search in a similar fashion that don't come up at google, though not everyone has access to them. And those that do may not always share the positive things about Rothbard they find, just the negative stuff.

So what approach do you use that is so superior to google books/scholar/news archives or whatever? Please share your superior knowledge.

Polymath is a secondary descriptor to give an idea of how many people thought him brilliant in a number of areas. It is NOT a replacement for phrases that a large number of WP:RS have described him as - like Austrian economist, historian, etc. The POV there is extremely obvious. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

When I do research from a list, catalog, bibliography, web search, or other tool, I then examine and evaluate each item according to WP:RS, and if any pass muster for the relevant article text, I use them. It is not helpful to announce a triumph merely because the search engine has spit out a list. The search engine will always do that. Our job as editors is to do the hard work of evaluating prospective references. It's only your personal opinion that the term "polymath" is inherently secondary. In fact that's what Rothbard was, and it's clearer than designating him "jack of all trades" or "factotum." We could end all this dickering about words by using the elegant and apt single term, "polymath." I for one support that approach. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If the word "polymath" is used in the article it should be added to the existing text rather than used as a replacement for more specific descriptions. "Polymath" is not specific and does not tell the reader what are the various areas of expertise that Rothbard was known for. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as long as we have the old-man photo up top in the infobox, I think "polymath" is too close to "polygrip" -- better to leave it out. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

POV article tag

Obviously an article that has constant debate over the huge amount of negative material added and the difficulty of adding simple factoids like that he was, among other things, and historian, is highly POV. Do I really have to list 8 or 10 of the most relevant issues that have ended up talk sections over the last couple months? And/or gone to noticeboads? Like this currently at at the WP:Reliable source noticeboard. The article just drips with nastiness for every breath he took. No reputable encyclopedia would allow such an article to be published. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the subject very well, but I just read through the article and several places look like a "hit piece". In particular, it seems weighted by looking for the worst things that individuals said about him and putting all of those those into the article. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Your "hit piece" description is spot on. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings North, my old friend. Please linger here a while with us and find some good RS material to balance the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, for example, a section describes his retributive theory of justice. Then why go out and find someone who bashed it, make them sound like an authority who analyzed, and put them and their talking points into the article. And make that the only commentary provided?

"Tokyo, examined and rejected Rothbard's theory. She argued that it is "very doubtful that retributive considerations alone" justify inflicting harm on people. She concluded that the personal feeling or desire for retribution is not an adequate foundation for criminal justice."

IMO, it should just state his view and then move on.....the article on him should cover his views, not debate them, much less build a wiki-construction of a one-sided "debate". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there an unsigned post above? I can't tell. Anyway, let's find RS secondary discussions of MR's work. I've found some and other editors more knowledgeable than I have found many more. When you have an obscure subject such as MR, it is not always easy to find mainstream or RS discussion of the subject's work and role. We can't just primary source quote the subject's writings however. SPECIFICO talk 04:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)