Talk:Bryan Caplan

Untitled

"Austrian economists have... praised him as one of their more knowledgeable and interesting critics." Can this be supported with references? Mattley 23:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Needs more content. Try creating a published works section to flesh this out, as well as any awards and accomplishments, history etc. Otherwise looks much like a vanity page--Tznkai 03:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I added significant content to this page and removed the stub tag. I think the issues raised here have been cleared up. Tyrannicide 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Second Deletion nomination

I say this article goes up for deletion again. This guy just hasn't contributed anything significant to his field, and is insignificant. After reading this article, it reads as if it were written in the third person by the first person, by that i mean, if reads like Byran wrote it himself, not that that is criteria for deletion, it just includes insignificant facts like where he blogs and so forth. Anyways, ill give it a couple days before i tag it again.--Gephart 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I find no insignificant facts on the page nor is he an insignificant player in the economics field. The reason why the article might sound like it's written as you say it is could be explained by the possibility that the author used Caplan's intellectual autobiography as a source. Also, similar concerns about the article were listed last time this went up for deletion. I don't see why we are having the same conversation again.--David Youngberg 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I do find it a bit odd that a person that has a website and writes in a blog should be included. I don't think he's that notable outside his closest friends and supporters. // Liftarn

His book has been reviewed in The Economist ("Vote for Me, Dimwit", 14 June 2007), The New Yorker ("Fractured Franchise", Louis Menand, 9 July 2007), The Wall Street Journal ("Casting a ballot with a certain cast of mind", Daniel Casse, 10 July 2007), The New York Times ("The voters speak: Baa!", Nicholas Kristof, 30 July 2007). The New Yorker piece was featured in Arts and Letters Daily. His article in the Economic Journal has been cited more than 50 times according to Google Scholar. Liftarn, Gephart, is that enough for you?

You guys have got to be kidding me. His essays have been included in Cato Institute publications and he has written articles for Reason Magazine. His book was reviewed by The Economist. He turns up 225,000 hits on Google. He research has been in the American Economic Review, Economic Journal, Journal of Law and Economics, Social Science Quarterly as well as the Economics journal put out by the Mises Institute. This guy is WAY MORE than notable enough for a Wikipedia article.--Jayson Virissimo 05:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Can we get citations in here for some of the statements of fact please? This is a very poorly written acrticle, and while I think the guy is notable enough to keep, this needs a lot of cleanup. Ikilled007 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Carl Rustici

What exactly makes this guy more notable than Thomas Carl Rustici? 129.174.78.220 (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This and this. скоморохъ 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommend trimming external links

This article has a disproportionately large number of external links. I have removed most of the ones that were in the body of the article because according to Wikipedia guidelines, "external links should not normally be used in the body of an article." However, even the external links section is overflowing. Not everything the guy has ever written needs to be linked to. Instead, judgment should be used to list only those useful to most readers. Keep in mind that according to official Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" --JHP (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

So far, this page reads like a straight up endorsement of Caplan. While I understand that since it is a living person, there are plenty of libel issues, we could certainly do a whole lot better in making this a neutral encyclopedia article.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just listened to a podcast on EconTalk of his, and he sounds somewhat reasonable, but this Wikipedia entry looked like it had been written by the guy himself. I deleted some of the blatant self-serving babble and the goofy reference to his graphic novel. Sanpitch (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a lot of your removal. Sorry, I didn't see this talk page stuff and there were no edit summaries. Anyway, I think the material that you removed was fine to leave in. It's sourced, and of at least some interest. If the tone of the article is the problem, then maybe concentrate on the tone and not the content? CRETOG8(t/c) 15:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is of interest if you like the resumes of economists to be on Wikipedia. As the other people have said on *this* page, the article is biased. By reverting the edits, you kept it sounding like a hagiography. Does every edit to Wikipedia need a summary?! 69.236.72.49 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

An edit without an edit summary is an unexplained edit, so may be suspect. I think it's your call whether to include an edit summary or not, but it certainly helps other editors to understand what's going on. I'm not an expert on what's expected of biographies on WP. It seems to me, re-reading the article, that it's fine, although short. It doesn't include criticisms, which it could if there are significant ones. I've asked for input from the biography project. CRETOG8(t/c) 09:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I thought Caplan sounded pretty smart in the podcast I listened to, but this bio feels rather undergraduate and makes him sound like a fresh PhD grad who has to list every publication he's ever had to boost his ego. Just to be clear, do you have any personal connection with Caplan? Sanpitch (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I only know Caplan from some of his writings, and I don't follow him particularly closely. I think he's notable, in that he's making a name for himself (still on the small side) as a "public intellectual". And I don't see any fair way to remove material, even if the article does read a bit like a resume. It just seems to me like a small bio article is bound to read that way. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly see how this article is an endorsement of Caplan. Instead it is a reasonably encyclopedic description of his accomplishments. I'm going to remove the dispute notice. RussNelson (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

I've removed the section of quotations as it doesn't appear anyone has quoted him. The references are to things he's written and as such are mere slogans. If others quote him, then perhaps the quotations become notable. In the context it was presented in this article, it was mere puffery and has no place on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I remember the quotes being especially out-of-place. Sanpitch (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Need secondary sources; most of article sourced to Caplan

This article looks like a summary of his CV and web pages. If he didn't edit it, looks like associates might have. Is there any independent commentary on him? He's hardly written anything notable. I'm not a deletionist, but it does bother me to see Caplan used as an expert on Austrian economics and a critic of Murray Rothbard when it looks like he's quite unnotable. Please find secondary WP:RS that actually address his accomplishments and when they are maybe half the article we can take the tags off. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 19:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your insinuation that Dr. Caplan has edited this article is libelous and a gross violation of WP policy. You should immediately make it clear that you have no basis for such assertion and expunge it. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Caplan's economics research on the rationality of voting has hundreds of citations in mainstream economics journals (1), as has his research on rational choice (2); his research applying rational choice theory to acts of terrorism has also been widely cited in mainstream journals (3).

OP's assertion is quite silly, particular given her view that Murray Rothbard (who does not employ the scientific method in his "economics" writings and has little to no substantive citations apart from those by Mises Institute journals, courtesy of personal friends and co-workers) is notable for his work as an "economist."

The article should (and could easily) be expanded to more rigorously detail Caplan's contributions to economics. but it is irresponsible, biased, and libelous to insinuate that this BLP article was written by himself or his "associates." Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen an article with 36 refs that doesn't have refs besides the individuals own writings. I had to check a couple times to make sure it wasn't a hacker hoax, esp. given the role playing-related and Dragon Magazine info. But finally found his CV which looked credible; I have a feeling the four kids keep him busy. More than half of Rothbard's refs are by third parties and I agree a lot more should be.

Tag wise, it really needs something like The only refs in the article are from the subject of the article. but that wasn't available. Any way, if you are sure it's not done by GMU grad students trying to get in good with the prof, feel free to remove Autobiography|date-flagged|date=August 2013. I was waiting to see if any anon ips from GMU jumped up to deny it :-) But do leave the other two til some one actually enters a dozen or more refs by others. (I assume he's not Steeletrap's faculty advisor, by the way User:Carolmooredc 01:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a laughing (or "winking") matter. Your tag and remarks clearly imply that either Caplan himself or a personal friend/colleague wrote this article. You need to either provide evidence for your claims or 1) admit it was baseless 2) apologize and 3) strike your remarks. It is difficult to appreciate your concern about BLPs being "trashed" (usually based on questionable interpretations of policy) when you are blatantly spreading falsehoods about a BLP! Steeletrap (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the tag, do a WP:MfD. There isn't one for just possible associates of the individual, I'm afraid. And it doesn't come with instructions on how to know who edited or how to use it. So don't read so much into it and just remove it. User:Carolmooredc 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc, Prof. Caplan is a real living person. You are projecting your WP battles on Prof. Caplan but that is wrong, it is destructive of WP and it is a violation of the BLP policies which protect Wikipedia and the subjects of its articles. You should remove that tag at once. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

With all the talk of fringe professors and walled gardens, I got curious as to how many professors commented on Caplan's work, since he was used as a reliable source/expert in Austrian school and Murray Rothbard. When I went through the 36 refs I was shocked to find no one but Caplan as a source, something I've only seen in BLPs with two or three refs. After reading the whole thing through, for 47 seconds it occurred to me the whole thing might be a hoax put up at the GMU site by Anonymous (group) or something, but I searched for his CV, found it, and said, no it's not, silly me. (We've discussed it longer than I've thought it.) I'm making the point when the only refs are "one source", primary sources and no sources, some people will assume this is just a fan site or whatever, and not a properly written article. So feel free to improve it. User:Carolmooredc 16:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding this point and upholding BLP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding my point on improving this BLP. Though seriously, if the article isn't beefed up to make him look a bit more credible, some people might start challenging him as a reliable source for expert opinions, given no WP:RS has indicated he might be. User:Carolmooredc 16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and the criteria which determine whether a reference is RS. It is not merely personal. Prof. Caplan's work has been published by numerous, independent presses and journals which have established editorial standards and procedures for peer review. Bryan's writings in those publications are RS, to the extent they are relevant to the content of a WP article in the areas of his expertise. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Too much reliance on primary sources

Picking up the same refrain as Carolmooredc in the thread above, I am noticing that this article relies too much on primary sources, telling the reader about Caplan via Caplan's own writings. This has become a greater problem with the recent additions brought forward by User:Vipul. Five of six paragraphs about Caplan's pacifism depend entirely on primary sources. The sections about Caplan's views on immigration, his views on anarcho-capitalism, and his "moral and political views" depend entirely on Caplan's writings.

We should source Caplan's views mainly to WP:SECONDARY sources. If secondary sources do not talk about certain of Caplan's views then we do not need to, either. The interest shown by third parties is what indicates that one of Caplan's views is significant. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see there are a few more refs, though haven't checked out the relevance. Quess we need to put the template back on. User:Carolmooredc 23:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)