This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from History of Money and Banking in the United States.Murray N. Rothbard. Ludwig Von Mises Inst.August 30, 2002 ISBN 0945466331. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2007031210010304. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
The Mises institute owns the rights to Rothbard's works that the distribute. Their faq seems to allow "liberal" redistribution. I would request that the creator of this page notify and get explicit permission for the work done here. Between the institutes mission, the fact that they are linked to here, and the fact that this is Wikipedia (non-profit, educational), I don't see them raising a big fuss over the material here. I would still recommend obtaining explicit permission, and usage guidelines from them. They have and email address just for this purpose here -- email@example.com . I didn't create this page, and have not edited it at all, but I would not like to see this page disappear. If push comes to shove, and the creator or main editor of this page does not respond, please leave a message on my talk page and I will ask permission from Mises. Thank You Umeboshi 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That may well be true, but the page that was there wasn't very well-written anyway and so I've deleted it. If you get permission, just drop a note here and I'll be glad to restore the page.--ChaserT 07:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have sent correspondence to the Mises Institute. I would expect that permission will be forthcoming soon. -- RayBirks 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Although they are not my 9 to 5 employer any longer I still work on a contract basis for them. Based on Ray's request I have been again authorized by Jeffrey Tucker to release said information for Wikipedia use. If you review my image uploads, you can see that the Institute had liberally allowed release of materials from mises.org under the GFDL. This book by Rothbard is also released for use on Wikipedia. I would be happy to field any questions related to this. DickClarkMises 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the wording of the permission, but all info in Wikipedia should be usable by anyone for any reason, including commercial purposes, so long as it is properly attributed. This mostly comes up around images, but it applies equally to text. -Will Beback · † · 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. The LvMI regularly grants permission to non-US publishers to translate/publish material previously published by the institute. In this case the text of the work in question is available for distribution with attribution. DickClarkMises 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a creative commons license, but the GFDL is more restrictive. Please refer to the GNU Free Documentation License for more information.--ChaserT 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I am just not sure what is at issue here. Quoting a scholarly source in an encyclopedia article about that source doesn't seem to be an issue for any of the other thousands of articles that do it. For the record, though, the text of this book may be reproduced here on Wikipedia with no problem. If you wanted to throw the whole thing on Wikisource, that would be fine too. Basically, you should treat this work as you would a work whose copyright has expired. DickClarkMises 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been less than helpful here. If you have permission, what we need is detailed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Briefly, we need an email from an email address associated with the site's domain (i.e., ending in "@mises.org") sent to the foundation: permissions-en at wikimedia dot org (with at and dot changed to @ and . respectively). The email needs to explicitly state that the material is released under the GNU Free Documentation License or into the public domain. Thanks for your help, and again, I'm sorry I was less helpful than I should have been the first time.--ChaserT 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll be happy to send the email. What I still don't understand is why permission is needed for quoting the source. In my own wikipedia work I quote copyrighted sources all the time. Are you saying that every such quote requires permission? If not, what is special about this case? DickClarkMises 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't quoting, from what I can tell. It appears that the content was copied wholesale from the linked PDF. Quoting a small part is considered fair, but this was entire paragraphs. Thanks for handling the email. Someone from the OTRS team who answers emails should restore it shortly.--ChaserT 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've emailed the permission in. As a Wikipedian, though, I would hope that we can move past a straight reproduced text towards a more collaborative, original version. Regardless, I hope that the restored text will make for a good jumping-off point. DickClarkMises 13:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to getting back on the road with this article. I must admit, it's been so long, I can't even recall much about the content that was in place before all this began (I have no offline copy). -- RayBirks 20:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the URL: .--chaserT 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear: I have no offline copy of the article that had been online at Wikipedia. -- RayBirks 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the name of this article is misleading, in that it does not make clear that this is a book: i.e. the title implies that this is a wikipedia article on the history of money and banking in the United States. I would suggest renaming in some way.(I'm making no judgment at this point on whether this article should be retained).--Gregalton (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any controversy in renaming the article to "History of Money and Banking in the United States (book)", should there? CRETOG8(t/c) 05:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about this earlier today. Perhaps we can solve this by correcting the title: It is actually A History of Money and Banking in the United States. --RayBirks (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. A quick search on google confirms that the books name is: A History of Money and Banking in the United States. So, the page should be titled A History of Money and Banking in the United States (book). lk (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded the book cover, added the book infobox, and retitled the article (and corrected title in lead text) to A History of Money and Banking in the United States. I didn't add "(book)" to the end at this time, but I see no issue with that either if someone feels it is still needed to convey what the article is about. Morphh(talk)13:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That helps. I moved it to (book) because the title was definitely confusing to me. Pdbailey (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)