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)

I'll deal with the rest of what you say tomorrow, Carol, but right now I'd like you to strike your comment about paid editors. The sniping has gone on long enough. - Sitush (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually didn't have anyone in mind, just was thinking of paid work generally, but did strike it. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've explained why the Friedman quote is self-serving: he's speaking about something of which he was a member and is doing so in glowing terms; he is not remotely a neutral commentator. Regarding the rest of what you say, writing a lot does not make someone inherently notable, nor is notability inherited from the people who he may have advised or the organs for which he wrote. More, your comment about other articles that have survived AfD is neither justified nor proven. I can give your some links - WP:AUTHOR, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:OSE, for example - but I really do suspect that what will be most applicable here are either the general notability guidelines or the specific PROF one referred to above. We need to address these specifically otherwise this article is headed out of the door. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm sure Friedman needs to praise the publication or he would have no other claim to fame. :-) Not really a big deal. Let's see how things develop. More will be added. Please feel free to help add info for notability and not assume there is none. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not getting it, are you? You start with another snarky comment that completely misses the point and then you make an assumption that I've not been looking around! The burden is not on me to prove notability but, believe me, I do a lot of research and I have been looking into this. I don't just randomly slap a notability tag on articles. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For all we know, Raico's role was confined to getting coffee and cakes for Hayek and co. The TNI stuff needs to be sourced by discussion of articles written by Raico for it. Steeletrap (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, while you started the thread, I didn't realize you put the tag on but thought you were responding to another editor who did so. So I thought your comments were general ones and not from specific research. So now I understand why you seemed to take offense at my comments. More info will be put in and we can see what happens.

Steeletrap, given you and your allies habit of removing sourced material, I'd be afraid to put much more in than that or you'd be removing it post haste as irrelevant or WP:Undue, or whatever and I don't have time to discuss it. So we'll see what seems relevant. Volunteer editors only have so much time to work on each article when so many dubious things keep happening in so many Austrian economics articles. (And I remind others of my volunteer status not to accuse anyone of not being a volunteer, but to remind them that volunteers are volunteers, after all, and what's the big hurry?) User:Carolmooredc talk 05:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Dissertation entitled etc" in Wiki articles

This search of "His dissertation was entitled" is used in dozens of articles. And I'm sure most use a primary source. There is nothing BLP violating about that information so tagging it for a secondary reference is the usual thing to do. And then I explain why it isn't necessary here. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm lost. What point are you trying to make? That we should mention the title of the dissertation? Did it change the world or something? - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to share diff. The point is, when one constantly sees deletion of anything that gives an Austrian economist a bit of credibility, one cannot really trust that the deletion is valid. Seeing that all those other people have their disserations mentioned makes me question why it was removed. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. But since he was a professor, how does the theme of his PhD thesis add to his credibility? He's moved on a bit since then. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has moved on too. The thesis is simply listed in the publications, with a WorldCat number, and mention is made that it served as a basis for his book. If the book (or thesis) has been cited by others, then more mention is warranted. But for now I don't see what the issue is for this discussion. As we have citations for the thesis & book, interested readers can track the publications down as they wish. – S. Rich (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that it is in the list of publications (although it was the book that was published, not the thesis). Like you, I'm still not really any wiser regarding the reason for opening this thread. I'll happily ignore it. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard "Great Influence"

The juxtaposition of a mention of Raico's teenage activities with a statement cited to a different source which states that Rothbard influenced Raico in the context of a specific later controversy about Buckley and the National Review is SYNTHy. Even aside from the SYNTH it misrepresents the statement in the second source by not relating it to the specific events to which the cited source applies. Other editors may disagree with my concern, but my reversion and reason stated in the edit summary, and repeated again here, should be addressed on the talk page. I would like to ask the editor who undid my reversion to please self-revert and let's follow BRD and discuss the pros and cons here on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are nitpicking. I'll tweak for now. Put a synth tag on it if you don't like it. I'll add stuff about his involvement in the circle bastiat with rothbard and others, though if I name them I know their articles will then get the treatment. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if you develop a new section based on the second source, but it's not a good idea to undo an ordinary reversion and dismiss the concern of the editor who reverted. I have no further comment but I'll again ask you to follow BRD and undo your reversal of my edit. By all means use the source in a straightforward way as appropriate elsewhere in the article. Please undo. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig through to see who started this but since the point is contested I would advise that it is removed for now. The burden is on the person who adds information and saying that you're going to do something later is not good enough - it might never happen, for a variety of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did it, but I do contest SPECIFICOS edit summary: "The comment from a second source about Rothbard's influence on Raico's thinking refers to a different context." Source says that Raico "had been strongly influenced" - and then says how he borrowed something from Rothbard. It doesn't say that he only was influenced by Rothbard in replying to Friedman. So it's not just nitpicking, it is wrong. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you added it recently then you definitely need to BRD. Just because you think t'other is wrong doesn't mean that everyone else does. We're a community based on consensus, not a banana republic. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just added diff of change I made here. Sorry if that was not clear. But I am saying that his interpretation is wrong and we should await his response of why it is right, if he chooses to make one. User:Carolmooredc talk 19:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Article largely sourced by Co-workers, Court 'historian'

Brian Doherty is very questionable as a reliable source, as an anarcho-capitalist fellow traveler with a B.A. in Journalism, he is unreliable as a historian (the book cited is a history text of libertarianism). Otherwise, we see the usual problem: Hagiographies from Coworkers at the Mises Institute and Independent Institute. (The Doherty material and the co-workers source the entire article, except for a cursory mention on a couple pages of one RS. (The author's children also receive a mention; are they notable by this standard?) Steeletrap (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)