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 Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the philosophy of Objectivism 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 Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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 New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.
Still waiting for "FreeKnowledgeCreator" to explain why he objects to the english language Well dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what you are asking me to do. I have no objection to the English language, indeed, I use it all the time. If you are asking why I removed your addition to the article, that was because it added what, in my opinion, was unnecessary editorial commentary on a quotation that would best be left to speak for itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
My edit is sound. Inserting the word "ultimately" implies - unsupported by the text - that Rothbard had any conflict about supporting or not supporting the idea. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
If you only object to the word "ultimately", then remove it. I don't care. It might even be an improvement. But please don't add your own unnecessary commentary on the quotation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
While adding "ultimately" might be sound if an analysis of Rothbard's thinking was at stake, we have another issue to deal with – that WP editors do not add their own analysis to material. In this case we are taking Rothbards own words (primary source) and doing our best to summarize them. We can tell the reader when he wrote the material, but we cannot go and say this was his ultimate position because we do not have a secondary source that says this is the case. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Checking the page history, it looks like IP editors began attempting to add this very recently; for instance, SRich's April 23rd edit does not contain the linkage.
Additionally, the second paragraph of the lede itself already contains the sentence "Rothbard was a heterodox political economist" with two sources for that sentence, so the fact that he subscribed to heterodox theory is established in the lede and it's redundant to push it forward as this edit does.
@Srich32977:, can you provide why you believe that this needs to be pushed forward into the 1st sentence of the lede, when the lede already covers it? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I suggest moving the heterodox descript out of the second paragraph. That way a major aspect of his stance does not get double treatment. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. And I suggest you revert yourself, since you are the one proposing a new edit that is inconsistent with the longstanding page content. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This has been heavily discussed. See the talk page archive. The long standing consensus is to describe him as heterodox in the lead sentence. A quick look at the page history shows this to be true. LK (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Good arguments on both sides, but unfortunately the discussion seems to have petered out without a clear consensus in favour of either title. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Murray Rothbard → Murray N. Rothbard – A web search reveals that including the middle initial and not including it are both common (I'm not sure which is more common though). Per WP:MIDDLES, if two variants of a name are equally common, the fuller name should be chosen. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not sure that interpretation of WP:MIDDLES has consensus support; it contradicts WP:CONCISE. I'm also not sure whether it even applies in this case, as MIDDLES addresses whether to include initial or full name, while this is about initial or no initial. Anyway, I oppose per WP:CONCISE. --В²C☎ 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Does WP:CONCISE apply here? On that page, it says "Exceptions exist for biographical articles" (although it doesn't specifically mention middle names). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm going by the underlying goal of WP:CONCISE, not necessarily every caveat added to it by somebody or anybody. The bottom line is that when usage in reliable sources doesn't indicate which of two names to use, the more concise one is preferred. I don't think it's helpful or useful to have or follow guidelines that contradict that. It just creates conflict. --В²C☎ 18:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think what he put on his books carries any more weight than any other reliable source citation. Plenty of authors use their full names or longer names on their works but are better known by shorter names. --В²C☎ 18:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. First, on reading policy, if two names are used just as often, we use the name without the middle initial for reasons of concision (as linked & mentioned above) in addition to the other prongs of the naming criteria (article titles policy). Second, I actually find that the middle initial is used far more often in book and academic paper titles. This said, he is even better known as just "Rothbard" but that doesn't mean we change the title to that. "Murray Rothbard" is sufficient for the article title naming criteria: the balance of the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify). czar 02:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I wish everybody would express themselves so clearly and so well found in WP:CRITERIA when they participate in RM discussions. A+! --В²C☎ 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I'm seeing basically equal numbers of references to Murray N. Rothbard and Murray Rothbard in Google Books (per ngrams) . --В²C☎ 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Support – Each of the Authority Control links gives us Murray N. or Murray Newton. Same goes for his Goodreads listing. – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This was partially why I created the move request. However, I'm starting to doubt my request because the Mises Institute gives fuller names for many people, for example  and . Goodreads similarly gives fuller names for people than are usually necessary. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
With regard to this removal, how would that work exactly? Are we going to have footnotes from the monograph section to references talking about how those works are significant? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)