Talk:Murray Rothbard

Template:WP1.0

Images in article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Looking through the discussion, it is clear there is consensus for less images to be included in the article. Looking through the article now, I see there are now 4 pictures in the body and 1 in the infobox (2 of other people), and the edit warring has stopped over this issue so it seems to be resolved. As the discussion has gone stale, I feel that all the views that people want to make have been made.(non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

---

We now have 7 images of other people plus the AR flag in the article. WP:IRELEV says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." This bevy of images is now the source of contention. Instead of simple names on the image captions, we have editorial image comments such as the support for Strom Thurmond, Blumert as a backer of the von Mises Institute, the embracing of David Duke. Blumert and Rockwell get two images each because they are seen in the group photo. Spooner & Tucker are not significantly and directly related to the article topic, nor are Rand & Mises. Should we be including Keynes, Locke, Paul, Burns, etc? No. The justification for including those folks is no stronger than justification for including the present batch. And there is no justification for the present batch of non-Rothbard images. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. The article was getting overstuffed with too many images which were interfering with the text. I removed a bunch of them, the least relevant ones, and I slimmed down the upright portraits using the 'upright' thumbnail parameter. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Mises and Rand should go too. And Rockwell – he's already in the group photo.– S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)16:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but this smells bad. You point out that these photos link Rothbard with various bigots, then you say they have to go. It's almost as if you're trying to downplay his endorsement of these bigots, which would go against WP:NPOV. I think we need to keep the photos until we can gain some consensus on what's fair and balanced. MilesMoney (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's not call them bigots. They are the key influences and models for Rothbard's work, as verified by cited Reliable Source reference citations. As such, they are the appropriate illustrations for this article. Rothbard developed his work by synthesizing and extending the work of these forebears -- that much is known from our RS references, so we are fortunate to have wikimedia files available to illustrate them. I continue to believe that the group photo, muddled and remote, is poor quality, but I believe that one editor objected when I removed it a while ago. Perhaps now with the better quality photos of the same subjects we could consider removing the group photo. At any rate, let's not denigrate these chaps by tagging them as bigots and let's leave them up unless consensus develops to remove them. They're valid per reliable sourced content in the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I tend to agree that Tucker was less of a factor in Rothbard's development than Spooner or Rand. The flag seems appropriate, although we should verify when the flag was developed and whether Rothbard expressed any endorsement or rejection of it. I'd hesitate to drop Rand, especially after Rothbard's brief flirtation and flip-flop on her, but you're right it's unthinkable to drop Mises. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This not a question of censorship. Simply removing the images does not change any text, but adding all the images which do not significantly and directly relate to this biography clutters the article from a WP layout standpoint. But the problem of all the different images becomes one of UNDUE, especially when remarks such as "embraced" are added to captions. – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV has nothing to say when the guideline against too many images is being violated. Images in the article should only show the most relevant points made in the text. They should not crowd the text. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I will remove that unintelligible little group photo and also Ayn Rand, who definitely brightens up the page but does not rank above Spooner, Duke or Thurmond in her centrality to Rothbard's philosophy. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(cough), sorry to butt in as this isn't my area of expertise. I saw Binksternet mentioned in a claim of edit-war, and as our paths have crossed from time to time I followed the trail to see what the thorny issue was; and looking at the dispute a thought struck me. Outside of the appropriateness of the images to the article, aren't some of them (eg Rand's) under non-free use and need rationales for their inclusion here to be also added to the image page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the above-mentioned guideline that refers to "mere" aesthetic considerations, the images clearly violate two core Wikipedia policies: the NPOV policy referred to above and the verifiability policy, in particular, its principle of burden of evidence ("burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.". --Technopat (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Technopat. Why do you believe that these images violate NPOV and verifiability? These are key figures in Rothbard's life/work/thought and are established as such by RS citations in text. At first, even the Mises portrait was removed, even though Rothbard repeatedly cited Mises as the #1 influence on him and co-founded an Institute dedicated to Mises. Could you elucidate? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A case in point is the photo caption "Rothbard embraced the right-wing populism of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke" which violates both NPOV and verifiability in one fell swoop. While it's true that in his essay on right-wing populism, cited as a reference in the body of the article (RS excludes primary sources/original research), he states that "...there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians;..." he also goes on to add that "...even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point." As far as I can see in that essay, there doesn't seem to be anything else in there that confirms he "embraced" Duke. BTW, one of the first things journalists study is how images and photo captions are used extensively to manipulate information, even to the point of intentionally giving a contradicting message to that given in the body of the text they supposedly "merely" complement. Wikipedia obviously has to ensure that its photo captions also comply fully with its own NPOV policy. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] The Duke stuff is drawn largely from the cited "who wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters" Reason article (1), which notes that Rothbard cited Duke's "right-wing populism" as a model for his paleolibertarian movement. Saying he embraced Duke's right-wing populism is a modest paraphrase. The captions could be shortened though, and I have no objection to that. Steeletrap (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I went back and looked at the captions. Some of them are just the names of those pictured. Others are direct quotations or paraphrases of the cited article text. I don't see how they could be questioned on the basis you are presenting, however even in the event we limit captions to a name and date or some other minimal identification of the image content, do you believe that an improper caption justifies removal of the image itself? What about the deleted images that had only minimal captions? That is what you and user Binsernet appear to be saying? SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In opening this discussion I had 3 concerns. First was the number of images that went beyond WP:IRELEV. Second was the contention that had arisen. (I was thinking about the slow EW that involved several images, including those with more than minimal captions.) Third was the NPOV and UNDUE nature of the image captions. Duke's image, for one, infringed in all respects: not IRELEV, subject to EW, and had elements of NPOV & UNDUE (as the article only has one paragraph involving him). As it stands I think the article is now well/better balanced image-wise. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

@srich'That's the kitchen sink objection again and it has no basis in policy with respect to the content of this article, as referenced and cited. User Technopat has stated a principled objection and is engaging in dialog about the issues he raised. We should not get off track before he returns to give his reply in this thread. Please reserve your comments. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts). My first – and only – intervention was to intervene in a clear case of edit-warring – whereby unsourced/NPOV content was being restored in violation of burden of evidence (see above). Content which, on later examination, also violates verifiability. My edit simply reverted to a "correct" version of the article from a policy viewpoint. If that means some collateral damage, i.e., a valid image was also removed, so what? As per normal editing at Wikipedia, if the image in question complies with Wikipedia policy, it gets put back. No damage done. As I'm sure you will agree, the important thing is to prevent edit-warring, and when consensus has been reached on this talk page by the editors who have an interest in and/or knowledge of this subject as to which images are suitable, any missing – and essential – image simply gets restored. As for the pictures with "a name and date or some other minimal identification of the image content", I obviously have no objection – within the limits set by a reasonable interpretation of the corresponding guideline. Whether or not that coincides with what another editor "appears to be saying", I have no idea: as I have just pointed out, I was merely intervening in an edit war. Since then, I have pointed out on this page that care also needs to be taken with the photo captions and NPOV. Hope that answers your questions. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that your own comment acknowledged that mine was a good-faith edit, not edit-warring. It was only after you edit-warred to support Bink that you decided you needed to cover your tracks by accusing me of what you're guilty of. I think you've done enough harm for one day. MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have since seen that this article is up for "Good article reassessment". I'd just like to point out that with the edit-warring that is evident from a glance at the recent history of this article, its chances of keeping GA status are pretty slim, so I'd recommend y'all to go for consensus. Although I have very strong views on the criteria for GA, especially as regards stability, I shall refrain from commenting at the assessment page. I've seen consensus reached on far more complex issues, so please go for it. Good luck! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is as it should be: it's not a good article because it's getting a hefty injection of POV from the entertainers. I reverted to the last consensus version. MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant what I said about this article being really terrible. It's bloated, bland and dishonest. For contrast, read http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard. It's short, it doesn't hem and haw, and it's not bending over backwards to make him look good or bad; it's honest. If only we could be half as rational. MilesMoney (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. Jeez! I start a discussion that addresses a MOS issue (layout) and despite a reasoned and well based rationale for removal of images, editors want to push them back into the article without a consensus being agreed upon. And what do we see immediately above? A comparison of WP to rationalewiki.org. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was fine, but your suggested changes met with a great deal of resistance and never had consensus, yet you and Bink edit-warred to push them into place. Asking for PP now would look like some sort of attempt to freeze it into your version so that you don't get reported for edit-warring again. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of David Duke

As a jew, I am no fan of this crackpot. But he was a seminal influence on Professor Rothbard's paleolibertarian political theory, which cited Duke's political platfomr as a "model" for a successful and principled rise to (white?) power. At a cosmetic level, Professor Duke, like Murray, looks very handsome in the picture wearing a smart suit, an impish grin, and a very professional looking headset. Steeletrap (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit protected – image deletion

Please revert the article back to this version in which the recently added disputed images are removed. The disputed images should be removed until discussion concludes regarding inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And I support this request. We were close to consensus, with MilesMoney and others agreeing. But the side issue of image captions was seized upon to justify restoration of multiple images that simply do not comply with WP:IRELEV. Leaving the images as is could be seen as a successful WP:GAMING tactic -- "evading the spirit of community consensus." – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for removing all of those photos. That's why so many people keep reverting the Rich & Bink Show. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

You have not answered the question. Specifico spent three days adding nine images, their captions, and some article expansion text in early September. There was never any discussion of the images, not until now. The first discussion about them was regarding their removal. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I only protected the article for 24 hours - I realize the images were recently added and WP:STATUSQUO should reign, but the purpose of the full protection was to stop the edit war, and I don't think having the WP:WRONG version up for 24 hours will hurt anything. Besides, I'd have to see more evidence of consensus before I made an edit to a fully protected article. I won't deactivate the edit request, however, and any other admins who happen by are welcome to make the edit if they see fit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding photo of elderly Rothbard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rothbard

Rothbard in the mid-1950s

I think it is appropriate to have a photo of Rothbard with white hair. This image served as the infobox portrait for quite a while until it was recently replaced by Specifico who chose an image of the man in his younger years. Let's see what editors here prefer. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Elderly Rothbard image in infobox, move young Rothbard to article body
2. Elderly Rothbard image in infobox, no young Rothbard
3. Elderly Rothbard image in article body
4. No image of elderly Rothbard
5. Young Rothbard image in infobox, elderly image in article body

Photo survey

• 1 is my first choice. 3 is my second choice. There is certainly room for two photos of Rothbard. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with alternative 1. The colour photo of the elderly Rothbard is a fine portrait. The photo of the younger is also fine, but he doesn't look in the camera and the photo appears more outdated. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• 1 is my choice. I believe it was the one posted when article was assessed GA. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• 1 is my choice as well. I just skimmed through the article to check to see if there was enough room for one more picture, and there's plenty of room. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• 4 I just noticed this thread. I think the current infobox photo of Rothbard, near death, does him a disservice. In his prime, Rothbard was clearly a man of some vigor and accomplishment. Seeing his image featured up top wall-eyed and breathing through his mouth does not convey the sense of his youthful accomplishments. This was not an old sage for whom a reflective pose might ring true. I favor the young, dramatically-lit portrait for the info box. We already have one shot of MR and Joey looking mellow. That's sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• 5 I think Rothbard is more recognizable in the youthful picture, but I'm not against other pictures in the article body, even ones where he's old. MilesMoney (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• 4 The old picture is not only a disservice but an embarrassment to his legacy. He is panting like a dog who sees a treat, and squinting so much that his right eye looks like a sliver. His facial expression is even worse; his eyes are glazed over and he is clearly disheveled, yet he is smiling broadly in spite of this, like a senile man. This evokes the idea of a weak man suffering from severe obesity and beginning to fall prey to a creeping dementia. Although it was taken when he was just in his late 20s (about a decade before he took his first job), the young picture more accurately and charitably represents the vigorous persona that animated his work. Steeletrap (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• 5 50's Rothbard is sharp. — goethean 21:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For instance:

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

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

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

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

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

Here are links:[1][2] Rothbard obtained a PhD in economics and was published, but he expressed the views for which he is remembered outside academic publishing. Is there anything in these works that has obtained any notice either in academic literature or among Rothbard's followers? Is there anything that leads one to think he was expressing the views that he would later write? TFD (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heterodox economist as prime descriptor is POV/WP:Undue

Just one more POV thing stuck in there. Sure, you can say those two authors describe him as one as I did later one in lead (though that may not be best place to say it, and Hoppe statement following it is pure POV synth). But the great majority of sources call him an "Austrian economist." User:Carolmooredc talk 06:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The "heterodox" classification is not strong enough to serve in the lead section. It is only strong enough to mention in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I see someone put it back using a quote from Hoppe and claiming it means heterodox. This is still just two guys opinion. Also, the section should not be heterodox economics. Where is the defense of this? Given none will put it someplace more appropriate, like comment in the "Economics" section. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the Heterodox economics article, Austrian economics falls 'partly within, and partly outside mainstream economics'. There is possibly an argument in favour of Rothbard being a heterodox economist, but I agree with Binksternet in their saying that a statement about it does not belong in the lead section. The two sources in the Rothbard article about the heterodox economics statement are also very weak... 60.225.33.120 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, "Heterodox" is (somewhat disparaging) comment on a form of economics, not a suitable title or description of it.North8000 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's accurate with regard to Rothbard. Yes, part of Austrian economics is within the mainstream, but Rothbard's part isn't it. Remember, the Miseans are the ones who explicitly reject the scientific method, which is what makes them, to put it gently, heterodox. MilesMoney (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable?

At this diff SPECIFICO wrote (RV bold deletion of properly sourced material. This is not a statement of opinion. If you believe this is not RS, the whole statement should be removed. If you concur with current consensus that it's RS then don't state it as one man's opinion. Use talk) regarding my italic'd additions to this Steeletrap text where I replaced "Rothbard endorsed the 1991" with:

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.REF:Kirchick, James (April 25, 2013). "The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid." The Daily Beast. "Murray Rothbard, another libertarian writer who published a separate newsletter with Rockwell that, among other Lost Causes, supported the gubernatorial candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke."[end ref]

• From a quick look at RSN archives, Daily Beast - especially under new ownership - does seem to be one of those publications where opinion pieces really need to be identified. The article looks like it's a "hit piece" written off old memories, not contemporary research. So at the least James Kirchick should be named.
• The ref itself only says Rothbard published something. I don't see any link to the alleged article where Rothbard himself endorses it. So this is a WP:OR/POV leap by Steeletrap/SPECIFICO to say Rothbard endorsed it. Perhaps he published someone else's endorsement and made some less-than-endorsing comment for the candidacy. Who knows? Kirchick's various Atlantic articles, linked in RP Newsletters article, should provide evidence. So this looks like an issue where if verification is not found, the whole thing should be removed. Thus I have tagged it. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico's bold edit has been reverted. Per WP:CLAIM, using "according to" is preferred as neutral and accurate. Since we don't have Rothbard himself making such endorsements, it is improper to say or imply that he did so personally. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You should read the article history before posting. Anybody who reviews the history will see that either (A) Carol was Bold and I was Revert, or else (B) Carol was Reverting and mine was EW. But in either case, your re-insertion, Srich, after my invitation to the talk page, was clearly EW and, given GS, your EW is conspicuously disruptive of community efforts to dial down the drama here. Whatever your opinion on the article text, edit warring with transparently false and self-serving chatter on the talk page is not helpful. I have placed a warning on your talk page. As to the content, if you care about it, you should reply to my concern: Either this is not RS, in which case the whole text should be deleted, or on the other hand, if it is RS sourced then this statement of fact should not be attributed to the journalist as if it were merely his opinion. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, your edit summary said "RV bold deletion of properly sourced material." You did not revert any deletion; rather, you deleted text which clarified the material was from Kirchick. You said "This is not a statement of opinion." Clearly it is. Kirchick is saying he thinks the RP newsletter was supporting whats-his-name. He did not say Rothbard was supporting him. (I am not opining on the RS of the opinion.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

While I think the previous version is preferable, I don't really have a problem with Carol's construction, and at least appreciate the argument behind it. I am not all that sympathetic to it because it's crystal clear that Rothbard endorsed Duke, but it doesn't really undermine the knowledge of our readers. Steeletrap (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ms. Steeletrap, I take exception to your view that the article should qualify the fact by suggesting it is merely the opinion of a little known journalist. I agree with you that second part of CMDC's edit is far less problematic. If she had done the two parts separately I would not have reverted the mention of the newsletter because it adds information to the article, however as Srich has cited the policy about weaselly language, claims, etc. I think that the article must state the fact as a fact, not the opinion or unfounded speculation of a reporter. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would remove it. Although rs provides a wide latitude for sourcing, it relies on common sense of editors. We do not know what newsletter Kirchick means, it may be the same source we already discussed. And the edit is misleading in that it implies that Rothbard supported a white supremacist platform. TFD (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a second look at the Daily Beast article. I believe that the article is indeed reporting that MR's newsletter took an editorial stand backing Duke. Do you disagree that this is the meaning of Kirchick's writing or in the alternative, do you believe that we should not trust Daily Beast as RS to fact check and present a neutral report as to what MR published? SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think news media are the best sources for current events and that should be their major use. Scholarly writing is better for historical events because it allows readers to trace the sources, like an audit trail. That way if facts in reliable sources are wrong, we can correct them. For current events, we can correct errors as stories are retracted or future reporting or academic writing contradicts them.

I assume Kirchick is referring to The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, as I can find no evidence that they published another newsletter together at that time.  :Here is a link to the newsletter. Can you point out where it endorses Duke?

TFD (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. We don't use sources that evidence show got it wrong, especially if they are opinion pieces. Doing so would be fringe encyclopedia writing. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we fact-check Rothbard's PhD dissertation? SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, vague responses not helpful. Do we really have to take this one to WP:RSN for outside opinion, given the usual outcome of these discussion??? User:Carolmooredc talk 03:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Here, this should help explain what I meant. Sorry for being indirect. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain how your link relates to our discussion. TFD (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

He's trying to use and essay to make a point. Nevertheless it makes a good one: Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true. However, if one finds that the one newsletter that contains info about David Duke does not endorse his candidacy (assuming that's the case), I think that would be evidence it is not true. User:Carolmooredc talk 05:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In 2011, there was a lot of mainstream coverage of newsletters related to Ron Paul. For example, this New York Times article: "In the Rothbard-Rockwell Report they started in 1990, Mr. Rothbard called for a “Right Wing Populism,” suggesting that the campaign for governor of Louisiana by David Duke, the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, was a model for “paleolibertarianism.” “It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleolibertarians,” he wrote." Perhaps similar sources could be found addressing what the Daily Beast article covers. Gamaliel (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That essay is already discussed extensively in the article, and we discussed it above. As I said, I think that may be the article Kirchick is referring to. TFD (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel's interpretation is from a Rothbard article at LewRockwell here described ad nauseum in this article. It is not revealed if that was in the Ron Paul Newsletter and if it was it's WP:OR for us to say that agreeing with Dukes issues is the same as endorsing a political campaign. Slate and Reason also do not [added and fixed "not" later] mention Rothbard endorsing the campaign. Kirchick may be engaging in the factually inaccurate assertions of hit piece journalism, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to mirror it. If editor's can't prove that such a newsletter endorsement exists, by Rothbard himself, this has to go. Do your research. Unz listing. New Republic collection doesn't seem to link any more. User:Carolmooredc talk 19:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, endorse in a political race is something that one explicitly does. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs. — goethean 19:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: "Endorse" If you are stating that the cited reference is not WP:RS about the newsletter then that assertion should be made in terms of WP policy and the editorial practices and other relevant factors about the cited reference. Discussion of the underlying facts are not relevant to this discussion, per WP:V. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the point is that one source that is very weak (due to bias) is not sufficient to make such an extraordinary claim about an individual, especially one that seems unsupported elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of cases where rs report primary sources inaccurately and at RSN editors can compare the two. I would guess that the newsletter is a more reliable source for its contents that Kirchick's article. TFD (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The explicit "endorsement" of Duke, per the RS, came from an editorial in the Rothbard-Rockwell report, and not the cited article. In any case, it's up to RS (not us) to determine what constitutes an "endorsement". Steeletrap (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the article in Rothbard-Rockwell IS the the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report article about Duke. Obviously he doesn't say endorse there. You don't endorse after a campaign. Another ref that does not use endorse in its discussion: New York Times. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Endorse is an English word which has numerous meanings and which is by no means limited to the sense in which it means to urging voters to cast a particular ballot. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard published a newsletter that endorsed[dubious – discuss] the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.[107 I think the meaning is clear. Please see Wikipedia:Gaming the system. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have posted the discussion to RSN.[3] TFD (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have expertise on him, but the following question comes to mind. Is the much stronger "endorse":

• the most accurate / useful word to summarize / provide the information? or
• A part of a goal to make him as bad as is possible....a case of "Let's look for the strongest possible word that makes him look the worst possible (support for a disliked figure from a reviled organization) and work the wiki-system to work to keep it in?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings North, my friend. The author, Kirchik actually doesn't say "endorse" - he says "supported the candidacy..." SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And the editor did a WP:OR interpretation to write "endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy". The reason Kirchick even writing "supported" is inaccurate is it says Rothbard "supported the gubernatorial candidacy of...Duke". However, anyone who verifies by reading the article sees Rothbard's talking about Duke's anti-government "populist" platform, that he also mentions a couple other "populists" who did well in elections, that he says that reformed Klansman like Robert Byrd aren't all that different than reformed Weathermen (wasn't a reformed one), Bill Ayers in fact a major influence on our current president?), and points out the platform/campaign has issues "paleo" conservatives/libertarians agree with. But if you are trying to smear someone in an opinion hit piece (be it at the daily beast or wikipeida), you don't want to accurately reflect an article, do you? User:Carolmooredc talk 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Visit "Dr" Duke's website and you'll see how reformed he is. Steeletrap (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What is relevant is Rothbard's views at the time he wrote that, not yours or mine at any point in time. Refusal to soapbox should not be read as approval or disapproval of anything anywhere. Please make comments relevant to article discussion. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this. @Carolmooredc: you should strike through your personal attack on me above and please also refrain from SOAPBOX statements. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what you are talking about. You'll have to quote where I say Specifico. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you support or oppose Duke's agenda. But, as I indicated, you uncritically presented Rothbard's view that Doc. Duke is "reformed." The man believes that Jews -- with the exception of Rothbard and other "right-wing" Jews-- are engaged in a conspiracy to control the world and subjugate "gentiles." A a Jew, I don't like Doc Duke because he exposes my/our mind control schemes. You're entitled to hold a different view, of course, and such diversity of opinion greatly enhances this community. Steeletrap (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox is a policy. Please stop violating it and desist in sharing your personal off-topic rants. Obviously from the text Rothbard believed in early 1992 that Duke had reformed. It's not our job to find out what Duke's expressed opinion was during 1991 and whether and why Rothbard was wrong. This is not the David Duke article. User:Carolmooredc talk 06:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Steeltrap, I do not think you are reading Rothbard's "Right-wing Populism" correctly and suggest you read about the subject, which is well described in The Radical Right (1963, ed. Daniel Bell), Chip Berlet's Right-wing populism in America (2000), and dozens of other books, for context. Berlet wrote, "When asked about the candidacy of David Duke, Vice President Dan Quayle misstated and sanitized Duke's message and then claimed its main themes for the Republican Party. "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 simple message. The problem is the messenger. David Duke, neo-Nazi, ex-Klansman, basically a bad person".... David Duke's populist electoral campaigns, however, helped to galvanize a whole faction within the fragmented New Right coalition. Self-described paleoconservatives such as Samuel Francis regarded Duke's strong showing in the 1991 race as a "turning point in American history".... Because they did not share the "baggage" of Duke's past and continuing involvement in neonazi politics, the paleocons could repackage a similar message in a form palatable to a much larger constituency. Duke helped fellow candidate Buchanan, a paleocon, by making Buchanan look moderate by comparison." (pp. 284-285)

Rothbard does not weigh in on the sincerity of Duke's conversion but questions why the Republican establishment would question it, when they did not do so for other politicians. AFAIK, Rothbard was not involved in the campaign and did not endorse it, but merely commented afterwards. And scholars on right-wing populism from Bell to Berlet answer that. Populism is a threat to elites and they either crush it, steal their message or bring them into the fold.

If we had a reliable source that discussed Rothbard's essay, then we might mention it. But he did not endorse Duke or his earlier klan/neonazi message and said nothing that other observers did not.

TFD (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Six WP:RSN editors oppose use

As opposed to Steeletrap/SPECIFICO/MilesMoney support for it. In response to my listing four sources (NY Times, Slate and Reason) that discuss the newsletter and do not mention Rothbard endorsing or supporting the campaign and editor wrote:

In terms of policy, I believe the community consensus has been that it is not a violation of WP:RS to decide to NOT to use something in a source based upon common sense editor rationales, such as that an isolated source contains an error or is not consistent with other sources. Indeed WP:RS never tells us we have to use any source, only which ones we can use. Sources commonly contain minor errors or points where they disagree with other sources, and such real world complexity needs to be taken into account when interpreting WP policy.

I think WP:RSN has spoken. Can we end this discussion? I'm rewriting who paragraph now. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So how many days before RSN is considered closed? Seven? Do we need to go to WP:ANI and ask for official close? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN is not a legal procedure—it's just a discussion. At that discussion, new opinions ceased coming in four days ago. Because there is no new discussion, the issue can be assessed and action can be taken here at the article. There is no need to wait for some formal closing action. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Around the time you threw civility out the window by saying "What utter bullshit", some of us realized that the RSN was off the rails and stopped participating. I assure you that our collective unwillingness to put up with your misbehavior is not a sign that we agree with you. MilesMoney (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you just don't like the way the RSN was going so you decided to stop participating and declaring the process invalid. This is becoming quite the pattern with you. Arzel (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like your response to complaints of incivility is to pile on some incivility of your own. I don't see how this helps your case, though. MilesMoney (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you two, enough personal jabs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've closed the discussion in question, and I suggest moving on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, time to accept it and move on. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

IPA for name pronunciation

In the audio file "Rothbard as Influence", Thomas E. Woods, Jr. pronounces Murray Rothbard as /ˈmʌri ˈrɑːθbɑːrd/ (at 05:43 and 06:16). (Note: "Murray" is usually transcribed as /ˈmʌrɪ/ in British dictionaries. However, /ˈmʌri/ has become more common in American speakers' utterances due to 'happy-tensing'; see Collins American English Dictionary: Murray). If no one objects I will add this piece of information to the lead of the article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian anarchism?

Section "Anarcho-capitalism" talks about "libertarian anarchists". What does it mean? Can there be authoritarian anarchism, or anarchists? "Libertarian anarchists" seems an oxymoron to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.227.146 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several varieties of anarchists and several varieties of libertarians (described at the linked articles), so yes, "libertarian anarchists" is meaningful. --RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal remarks by and about Friedman & Rothbard

@Steeletrap: How are Friedman's personal criticisms of Rothbard biographical [4]? Suppose Friedman said "I hated Rothbard." We would not include that, would we? And I believe you added the personal criticisms that Rothbard made, which are not biographical either. An encyclopedic biography should simply be a brief description or account of a person's life. With this in mind, both sets of personal criticisms should be removed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. Personal disputes are central to many biographies, especially those of career polemicists like Rothbard. Look at the Christopher Hitchens WP biography. It's largely about his personal disputes, and appropriately describes his ad hominem arguments against Bill Clinton and others (ad hominem arguments aren't fallacious or ineffective in the context of an argument strictly about the character of a person; in the context of a piece whose thesis is that Milton Friedman is 'not a real libertarian' (as opposed to a piece about his scholarship or economic views), ad hominem arguments are entirely appropriate and indeed necessary.) Furthermore, I don't see you objecting to Rothbard's attack on Ayn Rand, or any number of personal attacks/disputes described in these articles. Steeletrap (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard's initial friendship with Rand and his eventual hatred of her are exactly the sort of details that belong in a bio. Same for his relationship with Friedman. MilesMoney (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Steeletrap, for your thoughtful comment. You don't notice my objections, but that does not mean there are none. These remarks happened to catch my eye. So if there are other improper personal attacks, we need to evaluate them in context. In the Hitchens article, were the remarks personal as opposed to simply critical? Do his criticisms violate BLP? And most importantly are we including the counter-criticisms (personal or not) that his "victims" may have presented? – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We have to remember that this article is supposed to be a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources not original research based on primary source material. That way, we could avoid most of these arguments. TFD (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I'd agree. However, there is a lot of RS coverage, both secondary and primary, of the Rothbard-Friedman feud. It therefore deserves coverage. Steeletrap (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The MilesMoney should present them and a proposed summary, rather than re-inventing the wheel. There is also the issue of neutrality. A claim made by one person against another person that has not been reported in rs should not be mentioned, because that would mean we were creating significance. Also, if an rs has mentioned the claim, then we have a source that explains the depth of the claim, and what credibility should be attached to it, and probably Rothbard's response. TFD (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no ban on using primary source material. The Friedman RS constitutes a secondary response to Rothbard's general ad hominem criticism of him (even if not that from the precise article). In this situation, use of PS is justified and appropriate. Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

While there may not be a ban, it is hard to justify its introduction except for straightforward facts, such as the LvMI's address, unless its significance is introduced in secondary sources. I don't think "well there's no law against it" is a good guideline for choices that one makes. TFD (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

SRICH and TFD bring up good points above which should be respected. Also, the constant use of hyperventilated synonyms for Rothbard criticizing others has become rather comical. At some point I'll go through and tone them down.

As I mentioned on Milton Friedman talk page:

A really quick search shows that other secondary reliable sources mention Rothbard criticizing Friedman instead of using primary: Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers (Bloomsbury), Civic Liberalism (Rowman & Littlefield) or compare their views like Liberalism, (U of Minnesota Press). And here's another article with Mark Skousen discussing a Friedman criticism of Rothbard. Adding that general context and range of issues and a Friedman reply or two would make it a more solid paragraph.

Commentary by each on the other is relevant, as long as there is a proper notation of context and of fact there was a defacto debate going on between them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can cite WP:RS which states that there was an ongoing "debate" between the two, that will remain your OR. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

BRD/Too much from Hoppe on Austrian method

Ok, let's discuss this. Does anyone have an argument for removing this material? MilesMoney (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: How about giving people three minutes to finish their talk page entry? Thus adding my title as well.

At this diff Steeletrap undid, without discussion here, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz' reversion of Steeletrap's addition of the following (underlined):

• (Rothbard) embraced the strictly a priori Misesian method, which conceives of economic laws as akin to geometric or mathematical axioms: fixed, unchanging, objective, and discernible through logical reasoning, without the use of any evidence. Rothbard's Misesian methodology, according to fellow Misesian Hans-Hermann Hoppe

His edit summary reads: (excess detail in lede, a bit of axegrinding) I agree and when I reverted Steeletrap's wrongful revert - which MilesMoney reverted back, against BRD. After the first revert of new material you discuss it. You don't just revert it back yourself.

Anyway, I added that there is a problem with the sourcing. Hoppe is not writing specifically about Rothbard and names him only in the context of a number of people: Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan, to cite a few names, and as represented by Mises and Rothbard, and all the rest. This is too non-specific to describe Rothbard's very specific views (and I haven't even bothered to check your summary to see if it conforms to the source). The short version is more than enough from this source. Find a source that talks specifically about Rothbard's actual take on the Austrian issue; I'm sure it had some unique aspects. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The original removal was bold, and Steele's revert was the next step in BRD. At that point, if you disagreed with Steele, your job was to create a talk page section (just as you have belatedly done now) and discuss it. That's BRD. You did not BRD, you edit-warred to remove the material again, and that is bad. I have corrected your error, but please do not repeat it. Hopefully, my explanation of WP:BRD is clear enough that you now understand it. If not, please read up on it.

As for the merits of removing this material, there are none. It's accurate, well-written and reliably sourced. The "axe to grind" comment is little more than a shameful violation of WP:AGF. Hoppe explicitly names Rothbard, so you're mistaken about sourcing. Really, there's nothing left to discuss now. MilesMoney (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: Well, if that's true you should not have reverted me, isn't it. If I was incorrect in my thinking, my crime would be worse than the person who was correct in their thinking, eh?

In any case Wikipedia:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not reads: Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow. So Steeletrap was editwarring. You and I were not. So Steeltrap should get the warning. Thanks for making me go to WP:BRD

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your revert violated BRD and was edit-warring. I reverted it because it was out of order and because doing so would force you to finally come to the table and discuss the issue. Stop misapplying policy to justify your edit-warring. I have no tolerance for it. YOU were edit-warring, Steele was just applying the R in BRD, and I was correcting your error. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Your mention, above, of Friedman and others is a red herring. Hoppe does not lump them with the Misesian a priorism discussion. If you don't understand this, please re-read the source essay. The source clearly and explicitly supports the text which was improperly removed from the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is there is no statement that Rothbard himself believed specifically the views summarized. He's just twice mentioned as one of several names who believed some combination of those. But if that's the best you all can find I guess better researchers will have to provide better info when they get a chance. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's preposterous. Try reading any of MR's works on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take editor's word for it. When higher quality sources specifically about Rothbard are available (and there are several already in the article), use them, don't use less specific ones that just list Rothbard as one of several individuals all of whom will have slightly different perspectives. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you, caroldc, from adding content or better sources you feel should be added to the article. Any such efforts can only benefit WP. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I had intended to do since I also was annoyed at the material, but since someone else deleted it on proper grounds, figured I'd jump in. It's on my very long clean up list... In the interim, here's some Carlo Lottieri writing that shows his views are not quite as simplistic as Steeletrap's edits might lead one to believe. So a more sophisticated telling doubtless is in order. More to come at my leisure...Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, Rothbard (paraphrased by Hoppe) is not talking about economics in the page you cite. He's talking about law. Economics is objective and unchanging, like 1+1=2, in the mind of Rothbard. Please resolve to comprehend the meaning of passages before citing them to prove your points. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC) All you really need to know to understand it is that there is no evidence involved, and all the "logical deduction" involved indicates "Government BAD, market good!." Also, no actual (trained) logician has never come to the position the Misesians do, just obscure economists. Steeletrap (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

An a priori truth is one that is necessarily true, either be definition (E.g. A=A, and A≠~A) or logical deduction (2-1=1). Trying to "test" such propositions would indeed be wrongheaded. Rothbard is claiming that economics, like geometry, is entirely a priori. This is not just false but absurd, for more reasons than I can count. For one, while there is no exception to a=a, there are endless empirical exceptions to economic "laws." (The law of demand indicates that we typically prefer cheaper goods to more expensive ones; but an exception to this is the Veblen good.); its value being predicated on a psychological sense of "prestige" and "eliteness" associated with high expense, such a good's demand decreases when its price decreases.) Hence they are more analogous to the laws of physical sciences, which are of course replete with exceptions, and are subject to constant empirical attempts to find more, and even question (some or all of) the validity of the law.

Rothbard's economic framework also requires the odd pairing of a subjective value theory with an absolute faith in the rationality of individual actors (rationality as defined as people choosing whatever preferences they prefer at a given moment; again, there is no empirical support to suggest this is true). The simple fact that his claims are clearly erroneous, not a "statist" conspiracy, is why no one takes Rothbard's economics seriously outside of 1) fringe scholars on the payroll of Rothbard's Institute, 2) the laypeople who buy their books and push his political agenda. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if true, and I haven't seen convincing evidence, it doesn't mean that the herd of cats over there all have the exact viewpoint. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard's "In Defense of Extreme Apriorism" is a good place to start. As to the flock, the reason they're difficult to herd is not because they're cats, but because they belong to various different shepherds (Rand, Rothbard, Schiff, and Molyneaux, to name a few). Steeletrap (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, you would have fewer disappointing surprises here if you would take the time to read or reread some of Rothbard's writings to get more familiar with his thought. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, most proponents of Rothbard haven't actually read any of his epistemology, philosophy or economics. They just uncritically adopt everything he says because it's congenial to their political values, which they adopted without any study of philosophy, economics and so forth. Steeletrap (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so he's like Rand. MilesMoney (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The expression "discernible through logical reasoning, without the use of any evidence" injects judgment into the article, which is POV. One would not say for example that mathematicians calculated pi without any evidence or that Locke developed his philosophy without any evidence. It would be neutral to explain that he did not believe the method used in physcial sciences could be applied to social sciences due to the complexity of human decisions, and then provide a response from a mainstream economist. Also, I question why we are delving into his theories when there are no reliable sources that explain them. If we provide a link to sites that publish Rothbard's writings, readers are free to go there and we avoid all these problems of RS and POV. TFD (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Economics is about the behavior of people; it's a soft science. Even hard sciences, such as physics, do not get to ignore evidence. For a soft science to attempt to do so is ridiculous. More to the point, it's so opposed tot he scientific method that it's fringe. That last part is actually relevant. MilesMoney (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, TFD. Just no. There are plenty of reliable sources that Rothbard believes econ (like Geometry) requires no evidence. (You would absolutely say that pi can be calculated without empirical evidence.) We should not say it is unscientific. But we should summarize the methodology accurately. And we should quote Hoppe and other pro-Rothbard economists who say that everyone other than Rothbard's bosom buddies regard it as such. Steeletrap (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this procedure. An editor adds material without a source, someone removes it, and we start having a dicussion about Rothbard without any reference to any reliable secondary sources. Worse, it spills into noticeboards. AFAIK there are no rs for the edit, and therefore per weight should be excluded. If no one outside the LvMI has bothered to write about something then it is unimportant as far as this article is concerned. Just think of all the time we could save by basing the article on sources rather than writing it and looking for sources later. If the point you want the article to make is that Rothbard's theories are "false and absurd", you may be out of luck. But you can ensure that articles on economics explain why empiricism is important. TFD (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I know you are tired, but please try to be clearer. Are you saying that the Rothbard material is primary sourced (it isn't)? Or are you saying that LvMI isn't RS for describing his thought? Steeletrap (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The LvMI writings are not rs, and Rothbard's article, "In Defense of Extreme Apriorism", is a primary source. It is not "a good place to start." The only good place to start (and probably finish) is with relevant, reliable secondary sources. The fact they are absent is no reason to lower standards of rs and npov policy. TFD (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you will join me then in excising the remarks of LvMI scholars from WP's economics entries. However, they are RS for describing the philosophical thought of Rothbard, e.g. what his epistemology was. This is distinct from evaluating his contributions to econ, which they are not competent to do. Steeletrap (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful with primary sources. The act of choosing can bring significance to the insignificant, which is a form of WP:OR. If no RS ever comments on Rothbard's epistemology (or whatever), then I'm not sure we should be hunting down these unappreciated and ignored passages from the primary source. MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We have lots of secondary RS showing that Rothbard was out of the mainstream/didn't publish/was ostracized by his peers. Describing his methodology, through secondary and primary sources, helps our readers understand why this was the case. Steeletrap (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

MR eschewed the most widely-read and respected publications in the areas of his interest. Whether he could have lived a different life and contributed to the larger intellectual mileu of his time is moot. In the absence of such publications and the commentary which they might have elicited, we have no basis on which to discuss his writings in great detail. This is very unfortunate but it is what WP policy demands. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued: Rockwell blog on views on evolution

Since a new editor saw that paragraph and could see it was problematic and removed it, and an editor reverted it, let's look at Talk:Murray_Rothbard/Archive_7#Evolution. I see the discussion petered out at discussion of RS and we never got around to doing an WP:RSN on that. One more thing to add to my Do List. Points of particular interest to me from quoted above [added later: archived] discussion:
1)

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

2) Of course, reading quickly through Reed's article "The Metaphysics of Evolution" which Rockwell refers to, I think if anything that would be more like Rothbard's view, skepticism of the orthodoxy that life began randomly. Ever heard of Emergent evolution??... (carolmooredc)
3) In order to add Rockwell's views on evolution, we need a reliable third party source that says it is significant to his theories/career. TFD (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2013
4)If it had been a major issue for Rothbard then he would have written about him or reliable source would have commented. TFD (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Will announce when put in on WP:RSN, unless you all want to put it there or it gets removed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor that removed the paragraph. I saw no quotes that could be attributed to Rothbard or actual discussion of his views on evolution beyond Rockwell saying comparing his doubts to that of Ron Paul. What doubts are these? The subsequent Fred Reed article doesn't state anything about Rothbard's views. I don't think its well sourced. Perhaps there is something there, but I think it would have to go back to writings or interviews by Rothbard. Clubintheclub (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I know Rockwell was close...but still, Rockwell doesn't elaborate on anything beyond "doubts". I can believe in evolution but doubt that human life or mammalian life evolved on earth panspermia for example. I believe that the paragraph suggests "evolution denial." Clubintheclub (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the language should be "In a blog post Lew Rockwell noted that, like Ron Paul, Rothbard "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism." Clubintheclub (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Other thoughts?

Basically there's no there there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please put citation after text

re: this diff. As has been repeatedly mentioned to the editor, and now will be quoted from policy -Wikipedia:Citing sources: An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote. Editors should not have to search around for the source because an editor doesn't put the citation in the right place. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Moore. I did cite the source. You don't have to cite sources multiple times. Steeletrap (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to delete valid, well-sourced article text on account of the placement of its citation. Next time, please use talk to express your concern. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Steeletrap's diff read restoring properly sourced content (see the "Costs of War" book; it's there, ignoring WP:Burden of evidence is on the person who enters the material
• Steeletrap reverted my removal of the material here less than 24 hours after Steeletrap put it in without opening a section of discussion. This is obvious edit warring behavior. See WP:BRD. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The second diff isn't a reversion, but the addition of original content. Other than a bot, no one else had edited the Rothbard page for over five days prior to that edit. You are going to have to (as usual) cross your charges. I have almost given up telling you to read diffs carefully before making (erroneous, easily avoidable) accusations; how long is this going to go on? Steeletrap (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I don't understand whether you were concerned about the location (or duplication) of the footnote, or whether your concern was that the reference was not valid RS and that the content was inappropriate? Please clarify. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Re-read above. re: this diff. As has been repeatedly mentioned to the editor, and now will be quoted from policy -Wikipedia:Citing sources: An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote.

Given Steeletrap's refusal to follow BRD even during an Arbitration, I won't waste further effort for today on this discussion. Very tired. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Ref name hid real reference

Per this revert I see now that Williamson uses <ref name=":1"> which is the ref name for Rothbard, Murray (1968). "Harry Elmer Barnes as Revisionist of the Cold War.". Since I only read the "read screen" and didn't pay attention to the ref when put in "citation needed" I did not see that that was the error. Since Williamson is used only once, there's no need for the ref name at all so I've removed it; also will remove at Arbitration if it's a diff. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carol. This episode underscores the importance of reading articles carefully before making accusations about editor misconduct therein. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Selgin on Rothbard

I think Selgin's remark about Rothbard's busines cycle theory is good stuff. But the pissing match with Llewellyn over his absurd statement that MR was more influential than MF, and Selgin's assessment of Rothbard as "mediocre to bad" as an economist, seem unnecessary. Steeletrap (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

I find nothing in this talk page about the NPOV dispute. Please read the instructions in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute otherwise we will be having an edit war.