Talk:Ralph Raico

Material on New Individualist Review

A high percentage of this article is on the New Individualist Review. Perhaps there should be an NIR page and this material moved there? DC Wallah 10:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This page doesn't have a single citation to any source other than to organizations with whom he's closely affiliated. Binarybits (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

When is he born?--41.15.137.163 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't born in the usual sense. His mother just produced him one day in response to market forces. Silent Billy (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Raico says here that he was born on October 23, 1936 in Italian Harlem (now Spanish Harlem, NYC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g-12swklbH8#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.127.196.63 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted text copied from article. Needs RS verification and description of relation to Raico.

Raico and Ronald Hamowy edited the New Individualist Review, a journal initially sponsored by the University of Chicago chapter of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists. It declared itself "founded in a commitment to liberty." The first article of the first edition was titled "Capitalism and Freedom." Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and Richard M. Weaver were the first faculty advisors, later to be joined by George Stigler and Benjamin Rogge. Between 1961 and 1968, seventeen issues were published including articles by Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Jr., Ludwig von Mises, and Murray N. Rothbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

See: [1] – S. Rich (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In 32 seconds found voluminous details which confirm or correct at least some, if not all of above, and add other details of interest at 340, The Conservative Press in Twentieth-century America, a WP:RS. Haven't completely reviewed yet. Just a matter of doing the work and coming up with a shorter page URL. Will put on my do list if no one else does it. Also just noticed this "Further reading" link which is chockful of useful info. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for heck of it started filling out the stub. With just a mere mention of 'New Individualist Review, to be filled out later. Used the easy refs first; put citation on a couple things that became clear as I looked at sources, but have to figure out which ones to use of several. Also found bunch of more books/publications info but have to sort through it.

He does not seem to be an Austrian economist per se but a historian of it. So IMHO the economist claims can be removed. But if others differ, do tell...

Do not remove info with citation needed or because you think it needs better ones. Use tags We are volunteers and cannot be expected to ref everything with the highest quality ref the first time around. And it's not negative hostile material, which is what BLP is most interested in getting rid of ASAP.

Let's edit collaboratively. This article is not an AfD candidate. Thanks User:Carolmooredc talk 05:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of mention of collected works of Hayek? SPECIFICO here removes mention of Raico's translations of Hayek going into the collected works with the edit summary "dupe". What does that mean? I'm sure other sources can be found. If it means duplicate, no, I don't think so. It sounds like an excuse to remove evidence of credibility, just like SPECIFICO tried to remove evidence of Huerta de Soto's involvement in that work. (I'll have to check if he has since I stopped watching as closely.) User:Carolmooredc talk 18:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please confine your remarks to content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you tried to remove the same info before obviously relevant. The POV is relevant. But neither are an excuse for not answering the question. What does Dupe mean and how is that duplicative? User:Carolmooredc talk 19:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability

The notability here is moot and seems to rest primarily on his work with The New Individualist Review. However, in its present form the article relies heavily on a quote ca. 1981. Was Raico involved with TNIR throughout? If he wasn't, or if his role was not as editor or something of equivalent weight, then the quote is self-serving and should be removed. Please note that a journal can be notable without its founder being so: if sources are discussing the journal then they should really be in an article about the journal. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Friedman's favourable opinion about a short-lived, low-circulation (?) magazine of which he was a member of the editorial board is clearly unacceptable. Along the lines of "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" This guy Raico appears to be a nobody, a minor academic who has written a few things and dabbled in fringe journalism. He seems to fail WP:PROF, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, thanks for explaining what "the quote" is. I saw various discussions of Raico's role in TNIR which I can use to clarify any confusion or fill out factoids.

I don't see how a Friedman quote is self-serving - to Friedman?

Raico's obviously a writer as well as a professor. I've found a bunch more writings, reviews, etc. haven't had a chance to enter. I've noted in my WP:RS travels, he's been an advisor to many better known people and some have commented on him. And others have said nice things about the New Individualist, and about Inquiry for that matter.

The article is not finished. Not being a paid editor, I can't just hop right on it tonight. I do have paid work to do, after all, elsewhere. And even get time to rest. Articles of equal or lesser merit have survived AfD. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)