User talk:Awilley/Austrian economics

Welcome

Please try to keep any threaded discussion here on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

The treatment of Rothbard's article, "Right-wing Populism" (January, 1992) shows the extent to which some editors have distorted sources. Rothbard wrote his article following David Duke's unexpectedly good showing in his 1991 race for Governor of Louisiana. The showing was unexpected because of his past as a KKK leader. The lesson Rothbard learned was that a right-wing populist pitch was a vote-winner. Of course that is not an original observation, and modern Republicans have used it from school busing to Willie Horton to Joe the Plumber.

I think it would be helpful to provide criticism of this approach, provided it could be found. However the comments of some editors misrepresent the article, and that is where I would draw the line. Here are examples:

A picture of Duke is added with the caption, "Rothbard embraced the right-wing populism of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke"[1]

"According to the Reason RS (2), he cited these men [Duke and Joe McCarthy] as not only influences, but models for paleo-libertarianism."

"According to James Kirchick, Rothbard published a newsletter that endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke."

TFD (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of my depth here without doing a lot of reading - no idea who Duke or Kirchick are/were (aside from your synopsis), no idea about tactical deployment of school busing, no idea what paleo-libertarianism is, etc. That said, if there are misrepresentations/distortions of the source(s) in the current version of the article then obviously they need to be fixed.

I agree with your general point that there is a group of people who seem to be intent on casting article subjects in a poor light. How much that is justified by articles being biased in the opposite direction can only be determined on a case-by-case basis & by reference to WP:BLP in particular where applicable. I also think that there is a lot of jumping through hoops going on because of these effortds: weird interpretations of policy, quibbling over definitions etc: mostly, this should be easy - the source says it or it does not.

I also agree with you that there seems (in my limited experience) to be "an absence of detailed sources for the views and biographies". That to me is a sign that there is a notability issue, and I'm particularly concerned about how things are bolstered by repeated use of a small group of inter-related sources - LvMI, LewRockwell.com, The Independent Institute, Cato Institute etc. These various bodies & publishers seem often to recruit the same people, praise the same people, publish them etc and yet the rest of the world basically ignores them except for brief spats that, frankly, seem to be mostly a case of political "handbags at dawn" duelling. I've got a gut feeling that Wikipedia's policy framework is being hoodwinked here but I have no solutions. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for being unable, due to pressing matters, to be unable to complete the questionnaire this week, however I notice that various editors have repeated one of User:Carolmooredc's refrains, to wit: "there is a group of people who seem to be intent on casting article subjects in a poor light." I don't believe that this is the case and at any rate the statement is so general as to be meaningless. It would be far more constructive to err on the side of specificity in these matters. For example, the matter of the Duke photo among how many -- was it 10 at the time? -- was resolved when somebody pointed out that the article had many more photos than most BLPs and that most BLP photos are of the subject him/herself. I think that made sense and the number and variety of photos was greatly reduced. Isn't that how WP editing works? I will repeat my recent reminder to the group that a month or two ago, it was I who invited User:The Four Deuces to come edit actively on these articles. I did that knowing that he and I often disagree about content but believing, as I still do, that he's knowledgeable about the context of these articles and is able to have reasoned and rational discussions concerning applicable WP policy. The narrative, which has been accepted whole hog by many a newcomer to these articles, that there is a gang of determined subversives editing here is not true. There's no evidence for it. It's just been asserted over and over, often by editors whose knowledge of the subject is so slim that they're not very well equipped to evaluate sources and content. As for me, if I were a devious non-good-faith POV-pushing partisan, why would I invite TFD here? I'm not that dumb. The good thing about the forum that Adjwilley has established for us here is that, unlike on the ANI threads, we can think more deeply about our common purpose and collaboration. In this environment I'd hope these unfounded accusations or casual observations would have no place.

I hope to have time to reply to the questionnaire before too long. SPECIFICO talk 03:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way, but it's not wrong. Still, it's kind of missing the point.

In any dispute, the most automatic response to "Why is there a dispute?" is "Because these idiots dare to oppose my obvious correctness!!!". There seems to be a natural tendency to personalize content disputes, trying to cast others as either heroes (who agree with us) or villains (who don't). Even worse is the idea that our enemies (damn them!) are obviously plotting against us in their secret Fortress of Evil (tm). In other words, first we judge people solely on whether they agree with us, then we group the disagreeing ones into a single, amorphous entity.

If we can't get past this sort of childish finger-pointing, then we're in no position to deal with the substantive issues that underlie our disputes about Austrian economics. Yes, yes, of course the problem would go away if everyone else would just shut up and agree with us, but that's not going to happen, so let's move past the demonization and focus on what we can change.

In order to make any progress, we need to get rid of the partisan framing of issues. If, for example, I want to add some cited material about Rothbard, the first question on our minds should not be whether it makes him look better or worse. Who cares?! The truth is what it is, and all we get to do is report it. If it makes him look like a fucking angel, fine. If it makes him look like a devil, also fine. But if we focus on how it makes the subject look, this just turns into another way to ascribe differing views to bias. And that leads to kneejerk opposition to things we don't even disagree with. Instead, we have to stick to whether it's an improvement for the article. MilesMoney (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What TFD fails to not is that the 'biased' interpretation of Rothbard's remarks on Duke came from multiple RS (Reason magazine and The New Republic), not from any of the users on the page. He and others disagreed with the RS interpretation based on their own OR; we dropped the issue and have removed the controversial RS commentary about Duke. Incidentally, speaking of "misrepresentations", TFD fails to note that in the above-mentioned article, Rothbard not only endorsed Duke's strategic approach but endorsed his entire political platform (Rothbard made a note of mentioning specifically Duke (a white nationalist/segregationist/former KKK Grand Wizard's) support for "equal rights for ... whites") as compatible with libertarianism.

Incidentally, I believe TFD is wrong to say that the RS discussion of Rothbard's "endorsement" of Duke was based only on the above-mentioned article. Many copies of Rothbard's old newsletter are not available on the internet, but can be procured through other means (e.g. libraries); some of these newsletters could have endorsed Duke even more explicitly. While most editions of the Rothbard-Rockwell Report are available online, research indicates that they haven't reprinted some of the more racially charged material. Steeletrap (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it makes Rothbard look good or bad. In fact, how he looks probably depends upon who's reading. Regardless, the sources say what they say and we don't get to either make things up or hide things. MilesMoney (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, if you are going to comment, then you should have some understanding of the subject. You do not have to take my word for it, but David Duke was the "Imperial Wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The KKK murdered hundreds or possibly even thousands of people who were African Americans, Catholics, radicals, etc. Duke is believed to have attempted to overthrow the government of Dominica, retains his links with far right groups and is believed to still retain far right views. Again, do not rely on what I wrote, look it up for yourself.

Steeltrap you write that Rothbard "endorsed [Duke's] entire political platform." Your implication is that he supported Duke's white supremacist program, but as is known, Duke did not include that in his "entire political platform." Also, since Rothbard wrote after the campaign, it is dishonest to say he endorsed it. You say there must be other articles that exist, but until you find them we cannot consider it.

It is ironic that you are using the tactics of Joe McCarthy to villainize someone by saying they are using the tactics of Joe McCarthy. It reminds me of when 99 asked Maxwell Smart how they are different from KAOS and he replied, "We're the good guys." But ends do not justify means, and it is not policy to discredit people with whom we disagree by presenting false information about them.

TFD (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to debate content. What matters is that we agree to follow what our sources say, no matter what we would prefer. MilesMoney (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If your idea of sources is an opinion piece then you obviously are not following policy. To remind you again, articles are supposed to look like what one would find in an encyclopedia article (hence the name "Wikipedia"), an undergraduate textbook, or an article in a mainstream newspaper. This is not the place to present polemical arguments. If we did, then it would be an endless tug of war between polemicists who supported Rothbard and polemicists who opposed him. TFD (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My idea of sources doesn't end at what I like. If reliable sources say that Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform -- and they do! -- then we have to say that. If that makes Rothbard or Duke look good or bad to particular readers, so be it. WP:BLP does not protect against facts. We can't view the facts through an ideological lens and reject what doesn't support our own views. That way lies madness. MilesMoney (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@TFD, I know form you that Duke is the KKK leader & I already knew what the KKK represent, in a generalised sense - what I lack is any context. @Miles, I think that we may need to refine your definition of "reliable source" and weight; for example, if national (or perhaps somtimes state-wide) newspapers of repute don't pick up a story published in some obscure journal with a circulation of 3.1416 then it isn't really noteworthy even if the source might be reliable. Equally, if books published by respected academic presses (SUNY, CUP, California, Transactino, Sage etc) say nothing then we should put much weight on books published by what amount to institutional equivalents of AuthorHouse or LuLu, such as the LvMI. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you did not understand me I will explain it again. David Duke was a far right activist who renounced his far right views and ran as a right-wing populist. Right-wing populism is an approach taken by various groups and people throughout U.S. history - anti-masonics, know-nothings, nativists, 1920s klansmen, McCarthy, George Wallace, Perot, Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee. Rothbard noted that by abandoning his far right agenda and concentrating on a platform that corresponded to what "red necks", libertarians and the silent majority believed, he was able to mount a serious campaign. That does not mean that Rothbard supported the racist agenda that Duke claimed to have abandoned.

In summary, Rothbard saying he supported the views that Duke had expressed in his 1991 campaign does not mean that he endorsed the views that he expressed before the campaign. Nor does it mean that Rothbard endorsed Duke, since he wrote after Duke had ran. I cannot say for example that I endorsed Lincoln's 1960 campaign, because I was too young to vote.

Incidentally, if you want context on what the KKK is, read the Wikipedia article, google KKK or type in "Ku Klux Klan" in google books or scholar. It is not a very nice organization, and that is not just my opinion, but you will find it is generally accepted.

TFD (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform and suggested emulating it? MilesMoney (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "endorse" have a very specific meaning in US politics, ie: to offer public support for an electoral candidate who is running for office? If so, then given the chronology our usage of the word is sloppy at best and mischievously misleading at worst. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is way off topic for the current venue. There's no point in stating contingent conclusions before having read the source and talk page threads. Please have a look if this matter is of interest to you. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read the source and the talk page - nothing is contingent here and there is more heat than light there. Tbh, the Rothbard article is one of the more obvious hit pieces that have developed of late. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, your statement "If so, then given the chronology our usage of the word is sloppy at best and mischievously misleading at worst." is a contingent statement. Whether the article is currently in good shape is off topic for the current venue. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Who says it is off-topic? You? I agree that article talk pages are usually the best place to discuss article-related matters but they are scarcely the only ones, eg: RSN, DRN. As I see it, this process is at least in part one of dispute resoltion. I've certainly seen nothing that says "don't discuss article content". - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Three things. First, in the cited (primary-sourced) article, Rothbard clearly expressed approval of Duke's substantive political platform, not just his populist appeal. He wrote: "There was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by ... paleo-libertarians; 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." (emphasis mine)

Second, while the definition of "racist" is subjective (e.g. the KKK denies being "racist"), contrary to TFD's insinuations that Duke was a christened ex-Klansman, he was widely perceived to still be a racist and Nazi in the 1990/1991 political campaigns. He sold Nazi and racialist literature out of his legislative office and publicly engaged in 'soft' Holocaust denial. His campaign manager later said that "We keep telling David, stick to attacking the blacks. There's no point in going after the Jews, you just piss them off and nobody here cares about them anyway." The GOP -- a party that opened Pat Buchanan with welcome arms to the 92 GOP convention -- repudiated him for his current racist stands, not his past, and supported the Democratic nominee over Duke (the GOP nominee).

Third, TFD complains that the implication of the section is that Rothbard supported a white supremacist platform; the fact is, many to most mainstream sources would say Duke's 1991 campaign was advancing a white supremacist platform, even if it abandoned the white robes for swank suits. In any case, since this inference isn't drawn in the text, there is no problem re: NPOV. Our job is to present information neutrally and let our audience draw whatever inferences they want. The facts are: Rothbard expressed strong support for Duke's platform (opining it was fully compatible with libertarianism) and strategy, and contempt for those who opposed his campaign because of the racism. Steeletrap (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Steeltrap, I did not "insinuate" that Duke abandoned his views. I said he "retains his links with far right groups and is believed to still retain far right views" (07:06, 10 December 2013). Nor did I insinuate that right-wing populism is not inherently racist. I said, "modern Republicans have used it from school busing to Willie Horton to Joe the Plumber" (01:16, 10 December 2013). Busing was about putting black children into schools with white children, Willie Horton was the stereotypical scary black rapist/murderer, Joe the Plumber was a supposedly hard-working white man who did not want his tax dollars to go to "spreading the wealth", i.e., supporting black people.

Lee Atwater explained the difference in these two approaches:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*, n*, n*." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*, n*."

Of course Rothbard came from a different background than Duke, or Thurmond for that matter and, like Buchanan, did not have the "baggage" of overt racism. Hence the view that a populist message could work for them. That is not the same thing as saying that they endorsed Duke or copied him. Rather, Duke had chosen to adopt a platform consistent with libertarian ideology, and avoided planks that were inconsistent with it.

TFD (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, endorsing your convoluted reasoning regarding Rothbard and Duke, the apparent conclusion of which is that SPECIFICO, Miles and I are "biased editors", requires accepting a host of assumptions (e.g. that Duke is equivalent in some respect to Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber) that are dubious to say the least. We long ago agreed to drop the "endorsed" language at your protest, and the article now lacks such language. Why do you insist on re-litigating this matter? It's pretty laughable if this is the best example of "bias" you are able to provide. Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I brought up this example because it is the most transparent example of POV-pushing, since you insisted on including statements from a source that you knew to be inaccurate.

You say the assumption "Duke is equivalent in some respect to Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber [is] dubious to say the least." Exactly, so is the assumption that Duke is equivalent in some respect to Rothbard.

I have no objection to your opposition to libertarian ideology. However, adding false or misleading information to libertarian biographies is a poor method of countering their views. It means you have no arguments against them and must resort to argumentum ad hominem. That btw was the "strategy" of Joe McCarthy, which you claim to abhor.

TFD (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD you've stepped well over the edge into personal attacks now. Not only are you claiming that the "endorsed" assertion (which was documented in an article by reporter James Kirchick for RS The New Republic) false (which you haven't even proven), but I knew it was false when I put it in! Either explain how you have access to my mental states or apologize for your personal attack. Steeletrap (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard could not have endorsed Duke in the article "Right-wing Populism" because the article was written after Duke ran for office. That is apparent not only by the fact the article was published after Duke's campaign, but the article talks about the election's outcome. (See the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, p. 139, for an explanation of the term "endorsement."[2]) I am sure that you were unaware that your source's statement was false when you introduced it, but you continued to argue for its inclusion after it was pointed out it was false.

Also, your choice of sources leaves much to be desired. An article written years later and about someone else is not the first place I would look for information.

As for how your mind works, you have stated that you have studied fringe political movements in the U.S. at graduate level. That leads me to believe you are aware of how this subject is seen in mainstream sources, you are aware of distinction between far right groups such as the KKK and populism, know what "endorsement" means, and most importantly, would be able to compare Kirchick's summary of Rothbard's article and the article itself and determine whether his summary is accurate.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to read your thesis. I would be especially interested in how you handle the Duke matter.

TFD (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

He couldn't have endorsed him in the article you've cited above, but this is in fact indirect evidence that Kirchick/TNR were grounding the "endorsement" assertion in some other source, one whose language regarding Duke was likely even more explicitly supportive. While "endorse" does have a fixed temporal implication, it is certainly possible to express sympathy or support for the political agenda of a candidate in a past election. (E.G., one can express support for the policies regarding abortion Reagan advocated for in the 1980 race.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, the platform Rothbard "expressed sympathy in" was the one the omitted Duke's earlier overt statements of racism. You are trying to use Rothbard's statement that Duke's platform was consistent with libertarian views to falsely imply that Rothbard supported his earlier stated views in favor of racism. BTW if you said that Reagan's view on abortion was consisent with your's, that would not mean that you endorsed Reagan. If Duke said the sky was blue and I agreed, it would not mean I was a Klansman.

It is not credible that Kirchick is referring to a previously undiscovered newsletter article. The newsletters have been posted in their entirety. No other source in the previous twenty years has mentioned the supposed endorsement. Clearly Kirchick was mistaken.

22:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The newsletters have not been posted in their entiriety by the Mises Institute or LewRockwell.com (and while only one RS used the term "endorsement", numerous RS have highlighted and criticized Rothbard's support for Duke's political platform). While he did say "I'm not a racist" in his campaign, Duke's new platform was substantively supportive of racism. Virtually all pundits, media organizations, civil rights groups, and academics who study racism characterized him as a racist (as did President George Bush and the National GOP, which welcomed Pat Buchanan). He was effectively condemning integration and advocating voluntary segregation (not to mention selling Nazi literature out of his legislative office). His change was rhetorical. You lose credibility when you make false assertions. Steeletrap (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

While the newsletters have not been posted in their entirety by the Mises Institute or LewRockwell.com, they have been posted in their entirety at unz.org, and this has already been brought to your attention. Notice for 1991, the year Duke ran for office, there are 12 issues, one for each month. Each edition has 24 pages. Nothing is missing, except any endorsement of Duke.

I am not going to comment on your further comments on Duke, except it is also predictably a distortion of facts. I would suggest however that your misuse of sources contributes to the problems in editing these articles.

TFD (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Our sources say Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform, not his candidacy. You can't do the latter after the race is over, because then they're a loser, not a candidate. But a platform is just the policies that the candidate ran on.

It's not complicated, so your ongoing resistance seems inexplicable, not to mention counterproductive. We must go with what our sources say, regardless of whether you disagree with them, regardless of whether you have a special interpretation of "endorse". MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If "Our sources say Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform, not his candidacy", then it is disingenuous for editors to write, "According to James Kirchick, Rothbard published a newsletter that endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of...David Duke." Rothbard wrote, "there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleo-conservatives or paleo-libertarians...." He essentially said what Dan Quayle said, "The message of David Duke is anti-big government, get out of my pocketbook, cut my taxes, put welfare people back to work. That's a very popular message." There is no need to misrepresent this and imply that Rothbard was endorsing the program of the KKK. TFD (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The context of the remark from Quayle -- who was notorious for his inarticulate and unclear public speaking -- was his condemnation of Duke. He was parsing the positive part of his message from the negative; on other occasions which I've mentioned here, he and Bush bashed Duke's agenda. Rothbard, on the other hand, said there is "nothing" in Duke's message, including "equal rights ... for whites", that libertarians should not embrace, and criticized those who attacked Duke as a racist.

No edits or editors have indicated that Rothbard endorsed the platform of the KKK. Nor has any edit stated or implied that Rothbard 'endorsed racism.' Congrats for defeating those straw men arguments.

You continue to misrepresent Duke's 1991 platform, which was regarded as racist by virtually all mainstream sources at the time ("hate with a pretty face". He was denounced by the national GOP for his racist and anti-semitic statements, such as comparing 'anti-white' discrimination in college admissions to the Holocaust. Still, we do not say in the article that 'Rothbard endorsed a racist platform', even though he obviously did; readers are free to draw that inference, or reject it. Your insinuations that Duke was somehow accepted as a mainstream conservative simply because a critical mass of hillbillies voted for him, are false. (See, for instance, this NYT article, which reported: "Numerous trade unions, businesses and various organizations have said now they won't bring their conventions, their business, their parties to Louisiana if Duke is seated in the Governor's mansion"; or this LA piece, which noted that Bush had "urged" Republicans to vote for the Democratic candidate rather than Duke (a Republican), and described efforts by numerous local Republican officials to condemn Duke as a "bigot." The party's unprecedented efforts at condemning its own nominee was about ongoing, not past racism, else Jesse Helms, an ex-segregationist, wouldn't have gotten a pass).Steeletrap (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Also: weeks before the election, Duke publicly stated that he was "not at ease with" Clarence Thomas's marriage to a white woman. On the Bill Donahue Show, he proudly admits to selling Nazi literature, including the famous Holocaust denial pamphlet "Did Six Million Really Die"?, out of his legislative office, which he held from 1989 to 1992. Will you now concede that you were wrong to say Duke's 1991 political agenda was free of racism? Steeletrap (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to say "No edits or editors have indicated that Rothbard endorsed the platform of the KKK", when you said he "endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke".

Also, I did not "insinuate" that mainstream conservatism embraced Duke. In fact that was one of the major points of Rothbard's article, that despite Duke campaigning on the same views that they would, they did not endorse him.

I find it hard to believe that you would use the same approach to facts when writing a graduate thesis, and would very much like to read it.

TFD (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard DID endorse the platform of a former KKK Grand Wizard. It does not follow from that that he endorsed the platform of the KKK (oh, the importance of understanding logic!) The RS that discussed Duke at the time all prominently and repeatedly mentioned his former affiliation, which is why it was put in. When you're drawing totally unwarranted inferences (according to your laughably fallacious logic: x is a former member of y; z endorses x's current political platform; therefore z endorses y), it's difficult to collaborate with you on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This section has become too long, so I created a new discussion thread below. TFD (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Cut/paste from Carolmooredc other users section

The following are cut and pasted from the section for other users' comments for User:Carolmooredc. While there was nothing wrong with the comments in principle, they did not quite fit the purpose of the section, which was to provide a space for a positive statement of what the user could do better. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by User:MilesMoney: It bothers me that Carol has said very little about the articles and quite a bit about the editors that she disagrees with. She's making it very personal, which is counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by User:Sitush (I hope that you are sat down, Miles!) I agree with you. And much of it seems to be misrepresentation, which is worse still. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks, Sitush. Sometimes it takes having someone come in from left field to encourage you to unwatch all these articles again and get on to something constructive in the real world. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Carol, you made a sweeping generalisation my editing habits, among other things. It is a generalisation that defies analysis given my FA, GAs, DYKs, numerous article creations, expansions and rewrites + the acceptance by the community at large that my efforts to clean up caste-related articles have improved things no end. It just happens that the sort of puffery/BLP violations/lack of sourcing etc that occurs on such articles necessitates a lot of removals of recently-added content. I think that you'll find that I, too, have rescued articles at AfD and that my AfD/PROD/CSD stats are not too bad (ie: I'm with consensus much more often than not). Numerous people have asked me to stand as an admin and some wanted me to put myself forward for Arbcom this year. All of these are very respected admins and (until just now) arbcom members. Sure, I make mistakes but your representation is ridiculously skewed. As, to a lesser extent, is your representation of what happened when Steeletrap visited my talk page this evening.

  You say that "sometimes it take someone come in from left field ..." I presume that was a reference to me but, really, I've gone out of my way not to take sides in these disputes. I'm working off the policies but I'm not even involved in many of the articles that the rest of you have been editing and most of my involvement has been on talk pages. I always think that if both "sides" in a dispute think that I'm doing it wrong but they never agree with each other on any particular alleged wrongdoing, the chances are very high that in fact I'm not taking sides. And that is what has happened here. I've never been on "your" side or anyone else's. Nor will I be: each issue, each article on its own merits. - Sitush (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

In response to Sitush above, by left field I just meant, out of the blue/not involved before/not at first having an understandable POV. When such a person takes you to ANI and then AfD's a BIO article you clearly state you are working to upgrade; makes fun of the Bio article and the person's ideology; and then seems to infer they might AfD more articles you are trying to beef up, it feels like the universe is throwing out an fast ball - or asteroid? - to make a point you have not been able to get: stop wasting your time here. If you have a better phrase than left field for it, do tell.

However, I think Sitush does in fact have a POV as expressed regarding the AfD and on my talk page - dislike of libertarians which results in a desire to hold their articles to a higher standard. So I find it hard now to see Sitush as "neutral" in these matters.

Remember Wikipedia:5_pillars - the second is neutrality. And that's really the crux of the issue here. While sometimes I do soapbox, I try not to in order to focus on the material. After all, when one does Soapbox on one's negative opinions, others can draw conclusions about others' POVs and motives. If SPECIFICO and Steeletrap hadn't Soapboxed so much in the first few weeks Steeletrap was editing, and on and off since, I wouldn't be so convinced they have pernicious motivations. And obviously if SPECIFICO didn't see one of my very few Wikipedia rants on Israel he wouldn't have his perspective.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors does exist. While I've been advised per my recent ANI it's best left for noticeboards and conflict resolutions like this, editors usually find it relevant to article talk pages if someone soapboxes their POV on a relevant article talk page. If someone says on the Indonesia article: "I'm a Albanian and Indonesians are all creeps to be destroyed" obviously that is relevant to their editing on that article - and other articles where Indonesians are a major focus. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Carol, this is an example of where you are wrong in your assumptions concerning the attitudes of others. Nowhere have I said anything remotely like "I'm an anti-Libertarian and Libertarians are all creeps to be destroyed" - that Albanian/Indonesian analogy of yours is a grotesque misrepresentation. In the space of a few hours, you basically turned completely and accused me of being a deletionist anti-libertarian. I've already explained your wrong-headedness regarding the deletionist aspect; as far as pro- or anti-libertarian goes, I've said on a few occasions that I have little knowledge of the subject and no desire to find out more about it. Articles are either about notable topics or they are not, regardless of the general subject sphere. I resent your completely unfounded accusations. And I resent the manner in which you almost immediately reacted to my AfD nomination by personalising the issues as a consequence. You mentioned paranoia on your talk page but I cannot let any such illness be an excuse for everything that you say and do, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind you providing some diffs in support of your ludicrous accusations. I'm already preparing one RfC/U and if I have to do another then I will. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry your words sound quite biased to me:

{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_R._Stromberg This diff of AfD:] Writing:

• "This guy is just another in a long series of shout-y libertarian academic BLPs whose sources for notability lie in an incestuous web of fringe-y think-tanks, blogs etc."
• This diff on my talk page: Making fun of his name with section header "Joey Strom"; and writing "The usual fringe theorists etc doing the usual fringe stuff & patting each other on the back etc. You are building a house of cards and the Stromberg article is a test case - if that gets deleted then I'll likely be nominating a lot of others that are equally shoddy constructions in the "Polemicists 'Я Us" genre."

Imagine if someone wrote about some bios you were interested in beefing up: "Just another of those whiny anti-imperialists engaged in another silly sectarian battle." or some similarly dismissive words that some might use to ridicule the individual's viewpoint. Conflict resolution is about seeing things from the other person's viewpoint. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Israel

I noticed that several editors have commented on Carol Moore and Israel, leading me to believe the dispute has carried forward from other articles. If that is true, could someone please provide a link to those discussions. TFD (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That bemused me also. Sexology came into it somewhere, too. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you know anything about those discussions or do you just wish to tell us what bemuses you? TFD (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a backstory but I've never been able to find it, despite quite a lot of digging. The latest development has been Carol taking a few days off and amending her user page to include a comment about "double standard sexism" being "totally out of control". It is mystifying but we're not going to get anywhere here if people sling this type of thing around without explanation. I don't think that there is any dispute that a part of the problems have been behavioural but behaviour cannot easily be changed by recourse to vague accusations. For example, Carol has said that she thinks people diss her because she is female; others have accused her of mocking Steeletrap for gender-related reasons - most of it shouldn't be pushed around anyway because the key is content, not people, but since things are so personalised, we'll have to deal with it. Equally, if we're dealing with a poisoned well because of things that have happened elsewhere then we probably need to understand it. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Some background - Carol launched her narrative and accusations about Israel and gender issues about 7 months ago, two weeks after Jewish Transgender editor Steeletrap registered on WP and began editing the Mises/Austrian related articles. On gender, see here, [3] and on Israel/Zionism see here [4] for examples of Carolmooredc inserting her longstanding crusades into unrelated articles and contexts as part of her pattern of denigrating other WP contributors who were attempting to discuss article content. There are countless other examples of similar behavior. For more, read her talk page archives and various Noticeboard postings of 2013. Her initial angry post in this forum, subsequently removed, gives further evidence of what it's been like to try to edit these articles in 2013. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume the first link refers to my writing "Generally speaking males often experience strongly held and clearly expressed female ideas [replace later for clarity sake with] words or writings as psychotic rage." This after SPECIFICO accused me in a preceding sentence of feeling a lot of rage. The ensuring discussion which began to feel like harassment to me. (And note that this was at a time when Steeletrap/SPECIFICO were coy about their gender.)

And how are females supposed to express their feelings that generally speaking individual editors they perceive as males say things that are sexist or that there is sexism on Wikipedia? Are we not allowed to express that general sentiment on our talk page? Mine currently reads as the last of a list of complaints: And then there's the double standard sexism and the woman gap... (Or course I follow with a list of constructive suggested solutions.)

When things written truly are bigoted we do call people out on them.

I find it interesting that SPECIFICO expresses the right to make a huge jump in analysis, conflating two issues. He goes from my discussing Israel in one article talk page and my complaining about possible sexism in a reply to him

to inferring that I'm attacking Steeletrap who I don't even talk about. Now that sounds rather like unfounded rage to me. Plus a double standard where some people can complain about bigotry with no real evidence at all but others are being abusive if they complain about a statement which to them seems like it could be a bigoted comment plainly directed at them.

As for my comment on Talk:Libertarianism I find it irrelevant to this discussion. But since you brought it up, first note that no one in the section expressed the opinion it was untoward; in fact most editors on the article probably agreed with it, understanding the comment as I express it below, not in the negative way you obviously see it. See Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_32#Neutrality. So I don't think it was necessarily inappropriate for that page.

Second, it was a somewhat loosely written discussion posting so I was not careful to say I feel like I'm fighting with [add: those] Zionists who .. to make it clear not all Zionists have the extreme view point that I then described.

Third, I think at least a majority of libertarians have respect for both individual and property rights and self-determination. So they do not think there's anything wrong with a Jewish Zionist state of Israel in Israel/Palestine as long as it is created on justly acquired land (which only 7-10 percent of it currently is), doesn't have jurisdiction over anyone who doesn't want themselves or their property to be part of it, and doesn't aggress on its people or its neighbors. I've got a nice list of libertarian articles saying just that here and there.

Finally, in line with Adjwillely's comments below: I wish SPECIFICO and Steeletrap would be less sensitive that the slightest misspeak - not to mention disagreement on ideology - means someone is bigoted against groups they may consider themselves a member of. I wish they would not seem to be quite so paranoid or quite so willing to make a mountain out of a molehill. I don't feel like someone who criticizes the National Organization for Women or the Lesbian Avengers pr Association of Libertarian Feminists is necessarily sexist, even if they lose their temper once and say intemperate/poorly expressed/somewhat politically incorrect things which people keep splattering all over the place in an out of context fashion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Sitush comment way above on Sexology: Perhaps you are not aware that since Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute, discretionary sanctions can be applied and logged under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. The statement describing the scope is "For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." So be very careful of your pronouns, Sitush.

That's what I meant elsewhere on this page about others being warned about others' genders. Of course, years of sexist remarks and gross porno degrading women (or people of various religions, nationalities, etc.) has never lead to such discretionary sanctions and you still have to go to WP:ANI with complaints, unless there's some arbitration I've missed in the last seven years. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cut/paste from MilesMoney other users section

The following is moved from the "Section for other users" under MilesMoney. While it was a perfectly legitimate query (asking for clarification on these posts by Miles]) it didn't fit the purpose of the section, which is to give other users space to make positive suggestions on how Miles could improve. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by User:srich32977: I have some inquiries (which may help in resolution): 1. If most editors fall within the two groups (to distant/ignorant or too close/biased), who remains? 2. Is it possible for an editor to be both "ignorant" and "distant" from the topic, and yet (or thereby) remain qualified to edit the material because they have an eye towards producing an article that is informative? 3. Is it possible for an editor to be distant from the subject, and biased? 4. What is the right balance between closeness/distance/ignorance/bias? – S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, it's not constructive to begin a thread with a litany of false dichotomies and implied assertions which you require others to accept before responding. Please state your views or questions in a declamatory and explicit manner so that others may respond freely without entangling themselves in your personal views or assumptions. It's a veiled form of controlling behavior. See what I mean? Please consider. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I read this post three times and I'm having a hard time seeing what you're referring to by "litany of false dichotomies and implied assertions". It seems to me that Srich was asking for clarification in the form of a question and/or challenging Mile's statement that "most editors fall into one of two groups". ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Adj, I think SPECIFICO is reading these "inquiries" as thinly veiled rhetorical questions and attempts at "gotchas." Steeletrap (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're definitely gotchas. MilesMoney (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by saying most editors are either close and biased or distant and ignorant? Surely all that is required is that we identify reliable sources and present them with the appropriate weight, which itself can be found by consulting reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to state this differently: Srich's words are so general, his terminology so vague, their applicability to WP so unclear, and their meaning so likely to be misinterpreted, or interpreted differently by each editor who reads them, that they add nothing constructive to this forum. Srich is a master of this kind of (what I interpret as) passive/aggressive obstructionism which has the effect of sidetracking, fragmenting, or entirely derailing discussion of what should be well-defined, focused talk page discussions. In Srich's case, he peppers his posts with references to inapplicable, mis-cited, or misunderstood policies without explaining the relevance of specific principles of policy to the content or behavior being discussed. Take "4. What is the right balance between closeness/distance/ignorance/bias?" -- Do any of the editors assembled here think that there's an answer to this "question" that gives us useful guidance to facilitate dispute resolution? If so why, if not why not? When Srich poses "questions" which are confused and poorly defined, this inevitably invites cross-talk from editors, each of whom responds to a different understanding of Srich's words, and who end up frustrated and deadlocked. Whether Srich does this because he, himself, is confused or because it's a tactic to defend his ideological territory is irrelevant. Either way, the behavior needs to stop. If this were on his talk page, I'd expect him to reply "bullshit". Maybe he will do better here in this moderated forum. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

On experts

Someone involved in this has apparently written a post-grad thesis, someone else has a PhD in some aspect of economics. And they're sometimes touting the "I'm an expert" line. A read of WP:Expert editors might bring some perspective to this situation, even though it is but an essay. Experts are useful people to have around but they are not the be-all and end-all of the Wikipedia process. If you want to engage with experts only then you should seek a peer-reviewed journal or an academic common room: Wikipedia is a far from perfect repository of knowledge or indeed expertise & it is systemically likely to stay that way.

Of the articles that I've seen - all of them biographical - not one really discussed economics and most were potted details of a person's background/educational/institutional status + a heap of negative political stuff. The real issue here seems to be libertarianism, which has a much broader scope. A PhD or whatever in some aspect(s) of economics has little more clout than a PhD in, say, chemistry unless the article is actually dealing with the specialism. Furthermore, there is the old chestnut that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less - a cute comment but not without foundation. It is probably best not to rely too heavily here on one's academic qualifications, especially in situations where it is evident that others involved are clearly intelligent people. Wikipedia is a community and respect is best gained, not bludgeoned. The way forward is explain calmly, to educate each other and to realise that by and large our articles are intended for a general readership: it may sometimes actually be desirable to "dumb down" a little. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You make some very good points. I guess the training in economics and social science allows us to draw the inference that they are fringe (just as a biologist's training allows her to draw the inference that creationism is fringe). It's really just that simple -- very "learnable" -- inference, rather than substantive technical knowledge of economics, that is needed to contribute appropriately and neutrally to these pages.

The econ training allows one to know that the Misesian stuff is nonsense. We've studied this stuff and understand that empiricism and the scientific method apply to "human action," and that economic 'truths' are often contingent, not "deductive" (meaning fixed and logically objective) in the way mathematical ones are. There is too much predictive power in many "positivist" models for them to all be bull, as the Misesians say. Rich and Binksternet share the naive intuition that empirical economics is or could be (credibly) argued to be bullshit; these are fringe POVs that someone with formal training in econ would be virtually certain to discount, because she's seen the evidence for herself. Yet their entertaining (and in the case of other users, totally embracing) these views undermines all of their edits to these econ pages.

I guess, if one could accept that the Misesians are fringe, one would be just as 'qualified' to edit these pages as we are. The formal training can be thought of as a sufficient but not necessary condition to draw that inference. Certainly, knowing anything about controlling for heteroskedasticity or endogeneity in an OLS regression is superfluous for purposes of editing Robert P. Murphy's or Thomas DiLorenzo's wiki, given that their 'work' has nothing to do with real (i.e. scientific) economics. Unfortunately, it appears that, as a matter of fact (though not necessity), no one who has frequented these pages over the past several months has been able to draw this inference, apart from those with formal training in the dismal science. This (admittedly contingent) reality has undoubtedly prejudiced our views regarding the importance of formal training for editors to this topic. Steeletrap (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is much simpler than that. The primary concern is whether or not something is said in reliable sources; thereafter, weight should be distributed in accordance with the preponderance of those sources. Where the experts come in - as with WP:MEDRS - is mostly through being able sometimes to offer advice regarding reliability and perhaps through debunking some things using their presumed wider reading of potential sources. It's Five Pillar stuff and doesn't even need all the obfuscation of academic discourse that you're using in your comments. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

For my part, I do not say "My opinion is right and you're wrong because I'm an expert." You won't find me pulling rank like that, and I don't happen to believe that in real life or here on WP. Sitush, some of the Austrian articles are about economics rather than biography. If this interests you, please have a look at the Austrian school and other such articles and check out my contributions there. There are also others, such as Fractional reserve banking where fans of the Mises Institute coterie have long tried to insert Rothbardian fringe material into articles about mainstream topics. The problem is not laymen contributing to articles without formal training in underlying specialties. Obstinacy, battleground behavior, delusion, confusion, etc. are the problems. A civil and collaborative editor can work through disagreements or misunderstandings relating to underlying subject matter. An uncivil editor cannot, and civility and collaboration are necessary if WP is ultimately to successful. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I didn't say that all articles were lacking a focus on economics; I said that the ones that I have looked at (ie: the biographical ones) were thus. I've no intention of looking at Austrian School, Fractional reserve banking etc and have no idea if those also form a part of a dispute that, to the best of my knowledge, has so far concerned only bio articles. Certainly, it is disputes on bio articles that have resulted in referrals to ANI, RSN etc.

If your point is that people boost the bio articles so that they can then refer to them in support of material added elsewhere then, sure, that might be an issue. I've mentioned somewhere that some of this stuff seems to be built like a house of cards but you need to treat each article separately because none are reliable sources & thus carry no weight elsewhere.

There is no doubt that there have been numerous references in bio article discussions concerning the expertise that you, among others, possess - I can say that with certainty because I've only looked at those & therefore cannot possibly have acquired the knowledge of your credentials from statements relating to other articles. The academic credentials of some participants have been raised even on this talk page and then sort of alluded to in this thread. But I'll do some digging: perhaps my knowledge has been derived second-hand: people mentioning it in relation to bio articles because you've mentioned wrt the more theoretical articles. Sitush (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearing up a little confusion

Many of you may have noticed that I have removed a couple of your comments from the "Section for other users" sections because they didn't anser the question "What could this user do better..." Let me explain: The purpose of that section is not to be a space for responding to things the users have said in their statements, threaded discussion, general commentary about that user, etc. It is a place for a short, positive statement of something you think that user could do better. It's kind of a peer review. Let me give some examples:

Bad examples

• Carolmooredc should be topic banned...
• @MilesMoney, what do you mean by X?...
• @SRich, you misrepresented this...

Good examples

• @Binksternet, I believe it would help if you were a little less aggressive in your editing.
• @Carolmooredc, I believe it would help if you could stop taking things personally and making personal remarks against others.
• @MilesMoney, I believe it would help if you would stop wikilawering, and I wouldn't mind less reverting either.
• @Sitush, I appreciate your intervention, and believe it would help if you were a little more humble about your wikicredentials.
• @Specifico, I believe it would help if you would follow this advice.
• @Steeletrap, I believe it would help if you could be more careful about following NPOV/BLP.
• @SRich, I believe it would help if you didn't shout "BS" so often and stopped taking admin-like actions in discussions you're involved in.
• @Adjwilley, I believe it would help if you'd just shut up and quit meddling. OK.

I'll leave the latest posts up for the moment to give people a chance to refactor, but I plan on moving them to the talk page tomorrow if nothing has changed. My apologies for having not made things more clear in the first place and for any inconvenience that may have caused. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I will certainly continue to try to be more neutral, and to examine BLP policy more closely. I'm sure there's room for improvement for all of us in those regards. Steeletrap (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure you're right. I meant these to just be examples of what could be said on the page ;-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm just going to stay away from editing for a while because these editing wars have taken up too much time and I'm frustrated because I'm behind on so many of my own projects and just have to get them done. After all one always can come back in a month or two or three and easily find and clean up all the destructive edits, and even beef up and bring back AfD'd articles. However, being a believer in conflict resolution, I certainly don't want to just walk out in the middle of one.

I did do a quick read of what was written on the main page and above and saw a lot of misrepresentations or errors or failures to read or understand that easily can be show to be incorrect through various diffs. At this point, for starters, that's all I would like to document. I mean, if people are allowed to misrepresent, accidentally or on purpose, you can't have a real conflict resolution, can you?

Those are good rules above, and I guess I should make my own list for each individual, on both pages. But when it gets down to specifics of correcting things, it can be difficult. Hmmm, if no one intervenes in interim maybe I'll at least a few such statements above :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

KKK

Steeltrap and I disagree over the wording of one of his edits, which we discussed above. I would appreciate if other editors could comment on it.

Edit: "According to James Kirchick, Rothbard published a newsletter that endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke."

My reading: The implication is that "Rothbard was endorsing the program of the KKK."

Steeltrap's reply: Rothbard DID endorse the platform of a former KKK Grand Wizard. It does not follow from that that he endorsed the platform of the KKK. The sources that discussed Duke at the time all prominently and repeatedly mentioned his former affiliation, which is why it was put in. When you're drawing totally unwarranted inferences (according to your laughably fallacious logic: x is a former member of y; z endorses x's current political platform; therefore z endorses y), it's difficult to collaborate with you on WP.

Final word While it is an association fallacy for the reader to link Rothbard to the Klan, it is inherent in the wording. In other words, the text provides a fallacious argument against Rothbard in the assumption that the reader will dismiss his views based on putting his name and the KKK in the same sentence. It is similar to Joe McCarthy, who would use someone's name and the word Communist in the same sentence, hoping the audience would assume that person was a Communist. Bush used the same tactic in drawing a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, leading the public to believe the two were acting together.

TFD (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, friend, there's absolutely nothing in that text to support your inference that Murray endorsed the program of the KKK. I'm astonished to see that you read that implication into that text. Anyway the article provides plenty of additional context about the Paleo strategy and absolutely nothing about the KKK program. This makes your concern even more puzzling. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So you concede an inference is fallacious and simultaneously claim it is "inherent in the wording." (Contradictory much?) When in a hole, I suggest you quit digging. The former KKK stuff comes directly from virtually all the RS that discussed Rothbard's support for Duke's platform. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See "association fallacy." TFD (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I think we all understood you the first time. You should have told that to Murray. He's the one who endorsed Duke's campaign tactic. Is this stuff on-topic for the current venue? SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Pronoun issue

I'd just like to note that TDF referred to Steeletrap with the pronoun "his" and since I got reamed out at a talk page and ANI by Steeletrap for using "he", it would be helpful if Steeletrap would clarify to everyone what pronouns should be used by those who choose to use them regarding Steeletrap. I know SPECIFICO has said s/he is comfortable with either, unless I've missed something more recent. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go off on TFD because I wasn't sure whether he was being disrespectful, or simply didn't know which gender I was (the principle of charity dictates I assume the latter in absence of strong reason to believe the former -- there is no reason whatsoever to believe it here.) I only make such accusations when it is clear that the other person is intentionally dissing my gender identification, as you (Carol) clearly did. You ridiculed my identification by 1) willfully using the masculine pronoun when you had been repeatedly told of my preference; 2) replying to a talk page post in which I identified as a trans woman by linking to a page which said trans women aren't women; that page (womyn born womyn) had no relevance whatsoever to Bill Cinton, the subject of the talk page we were on, so you clearly were making a personal remark about my identification.

But you know what: that's ok! I git it, girl! And I have to say, I've been totally excited about the fact that most of my WP peers -- including the most antagonistic -- have never indulged in transphobia or misogyny in their dealings with me. You are the exception, not the rule. Steeletrap (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As I told you before, you only said you were transgender, not specifying if you were a MTF or FTM and I've known lots of both. (I've lived with a transgender for almost 18 years now, after all.) And I just got tired in general of dealing with s/he and his/her so had gotten back to calling all unknown persons "he".

I can present the diffs showing that shortly after I made that point on ANI and elsewhere is when you finally put the MTF user box on your user page so there would be no confusion for those who went there. So if I use "he" again it's just an accident. I wish you wouldn't take it so personally. And hopefully everyone here is now warned. As I mention above Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute, discretionary sanctions can be applied and logged under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. The statement describing the scope is "For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning."

Also, you said you were a "Proud woman" in defending what I consider the sexual predator Bill Clinton. You didn't say what kind of proud woman you were - MtF or FtM. (Or whatever the correct lingo is - my housemate is a libertarian so doesn't use all the politically correct lingo.) And I think woman born woman is perfectly fine phrase for women who have had to put up with all the BS since birth. But that's an ideological difference between radical feminists and MtF transgenders which is quite complex and I only have read a bit about it, mostly on sites by radical lesbians who... well, I won't go on.... Feminist_views_on_transgenderism_and_transsexualism is a poorly sourced and rather biased/cherry-picked quote filled and outdated article on the topic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Investigation and Experiment RE: Communication

I've just read User:Srich32977's responses to the Q+A half a dozen times. I find them impossible to parse or to relate to the given questions. If it's OK with our host, I'd like to ask users to read the first 2 Q+A in Srich's section (copied below) and then 1. Paraphrase each of Srich's responses in your own words, and 2. State how they respond to Adjwilley's two questions.

The reason for this is to investigate or demonstrate the degree to which unclear thinking or communication may be leading to confused talk page threads and hard feelings and frustration about editors who appear to be ignoring what in fact they are just not understanding. I hope this experiment is appropriate here.

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics? Answer: Having been a professional (and successful) mainstreamer for most of my adult life, I've grown more and more to appreciate the need to be wary of those who profess to know what's best. Too often, I fear, their intent is pure selfishness and they seek to impose what they believe upon others simply because of the status they thereby enjoy. Personally, I can (and do) prosper by acting freely (within the norms of society and Wikipedia). Overall, I'd prefer that I'd be free of impositions so long as my activities do no harm. And I want others to enjoy the same liberty. So I'm wary of those who provide an Escape from Freedom into the mainstream, those who thereby aggrandize their own status because of power they can exert against individuals, groups, societies, communities, nations. To do so is human nature, I suppose, but the efforts of free individuals may be enough to overcome this nefarious aspect of our societal psyche. My efforts, whether they help or hinder, are part of the overall Human Action we engage in, and I believe AE provides support for the liberty we enjoy overall. I refuse to take the road to serfdom and if clarifying AE makes that road more difficult, then I'm doing my part.

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute? Answer: At heart, all people are libertarians – wishing, more or less, to do what we want to do (and we will do so at times by giving up our own liberty). But as Russell Kirk says, libertarians in particular are like chirping secretaries. (Kirk has other criticisms of libertarians, which I intend to incorporate better into WP.) Thus the inability to herd libertarian cats becomes a problem, because the factions want to promote their favorite rendition of libertarianism and/or AE, at the expense of the less favored renditions. And when these favored views conflict with or supplement various anti-libertarian and anti-AE factions (or become conflated with Conservative/Liberal/Progressive views), we have plenty of fodder.

Let's see what we learn? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I find the responses to be verbose but still parseable. Intent is easier to glean when one doesn't approach it from a position of hostility. Here's my paraphrase:

Why have you chosen to edit articles about Austrian economics?

Paraphrased Answer: I believe Austrian Economics (AE) supports libertarian principles and that helping clarify AE articles on Wikipedia will help postpone degradation of our liberties.

What do you think is the root cause of the current ongoing dispute?

Paraphrased Answer: Different libertarian factions want to promote their views and attack the views of other factions, and adding other ideologies into the mix makes it an even more conflict-prone topic area.

(Srich32977, if I am mistaken in my paraphrasing I will gladly accept your correction.)

In general, very few parties to this dispute have spent much effort on really trying to understand their opponents' concerns or reasoning; what inquiries I've seen (and I've been silently observing a lot) have largely appeared to be intended to win a debate, force a retreat, make a big deal out of a minor issue, or make a rhetorical point; and there have been very few honest attempts at discerning the other point of view in order to find common ground to build upon. There's been lots of talking at each other but precious little listening to or engaging with each other. That's what you disputants all need to learn from this exercise, Specifico, but it will take some personal eye-beam removal before others' eye-motes can be pointed out and cleared away. alanyst 05:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent points. It would help if SPECIFICO and Steeletrap (and Sitush?) could back up a bit from their denigrating statements on libertarians and Austrians economists of the most hardcore libertarian schools. It's hard to try to find common ground with people who have announced that the subjects of articles are silly duffusses and/or only should be criticized because they are too fringe to have their ideas taken seriously, especially when they state and continue to infer that editors who disagrees with their edits must be cultish apologists and whitewashers. If you have ideas on how to step it back, do tell! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You're making a big leap, Carol. I haven't denigrated libertarians - I've just sent to WP:AFD a couple of articles that appear to be about non-notables who happen to be connected with a particular school of thought. The early signs are that they will indeed be deleted. Lay off the sweeping accusations, please: it is not uncommon for me to request deletion of articles about apparently non-notable subjects, and they're rarely related to libertarianism. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)