Talk:Robert P. Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Find sources: "Robert Murphy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Vanity tag[edit]

I removed the vanity warning since I, not Bob Murphy, created this Wikipedia article about Murphy, an arguably notable economist and Libertarian theorist. DickClarkMises 06:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll vouch for Bob being an important commentator in radical libertarian spheres. I was also wondering if we should add a note about his religious beliefs, as they often play a major role in his writings for 09:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Taking a fresh look[edit]

Does anyone disagree with me at this point that we should consider AfD for this article. It barely passes any semblance of muster. Has this been discussed previously? I note that Mises affiliate DickClarkMises called Murphy "arguably notable" seven years ago and I don't see anything in the article that clearly establishes his notability. Thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. The "inflation prediction" (we can't say incorrect, because that's a non-neutral fact) and his Lew Rockwell dot come articles are all that come up on Google. Steeletrap (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

secondary sources[edit]

could someone add secondary sources? currently references are mostly reviews of his books. (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't book reviews a type of secondary source? According to the Wikipedia article, Secondary source means a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. That seems to me to include such things as book reviews, which are discussions of the form and content of the original author's books. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, strictly speaking there are only two book reviews (three if you include the interview about the PIG book) cited out of thirteen total sources. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And 6 sources are by the author himself. BIO article needs to be based on third party sources. This article is not about his books, for which sources would be fine, but about himself. (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources authored by the article subject are acceptable for the attribution of non-controversial assertions. See WP:SELFPUB. This article is about Murphy and his books, since he is notable in large part based on what he has written. There are thirteen sources, and together they make for a pretty well-sourced article. More sources would always be welcome, of course. Do you have some suggestions on how to expand the coverage? DickClarkMises (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:BLPSTYLE216.80.119.92
To make it easier, I am sure you can find some secondary sources here: [1] and here [2] (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the Barron's article cited in the article, which favorably compares Murphy to Thomas Sowell, takes care of the notability issue, especially in light of the other reviews. The third criterion listed at WP:CREATIVE is The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The PIG book is well-known, and has been the subject of multiple independent articles or reviews. If you know of additional sources that would be useful, be bold and add them. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for answering an implicit question I asked, and specifying the basis for notability of author and not his work. So specifically, I would suggest adding some of these. [3], or these [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the links you provided, but it isn't obvious to me that the limited previews of the books would be useful to us as sources (none of the available content discusses Murphy). As for a Google news or scholar search, I agree that some coverage of other notable scholars who have cited Murphy might be useful. Feel free to add it! Likewise with third-party coverage of his books and articles. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Krugman Debate[edit]

Should a section be included regarding his debate challenge to Paul Krugman? I'm happy to write the section, but being a new to Wikipedia, I'm opening this for discussion before adding. Jtropeano (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Murphy's Losing the Bet[edit]

Hey. I know the OR isn't welcomed, but don't you think an illustration of how badly Murphy lost the bet (the change CPI would've had to have been more than 150% greater than it was in the highest year of change for him to have one) is relevant? (Murphy himself concedes this, btw). Steeletrap (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I added that he conceded loosing. By how much (whether badly or by a hair) is not for us to judge. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Srich, I'm not sure what you mean. Murphy predicted 10% or more inflation and it never hit even 4%. I agree that whether that's "big" or "close" loss is for others to judge (though (and this is me speaking in a common-sense, unencyclopedic fashion :) )for those acquainted with economics, it's going to sound like a 41-3 football game). But isn't listing (without commentary) that CPI ended up being lower than 4% in all years, as cited by Murphy, relevant to the bet? Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In this regard we are getting into WP:SYN. We cannot take fact A (the terms of their bet), and fact B (what we perceive as to the win/lose determining parameters of their bet), and reach conclusion C (that the bet was lost by a big or small margin). The only real point (and it really is a trivial one because economists and prophets are wrong at least half the time in these matters) is that the bet was made, with one side "winning" and the other "losing". Going beyond that is ad hominem, which these guys (Murphy et al) already do too much. If Murphy (or another RS) had said "Yup, I lost badly by 10% (or whatever)", then we could put that sort of statement in. – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh I fully agree that C -- which contains a value judgment about how "bad" (or "close") the loss was -- is inappropriate. I am just wondering why, bereft of any commentary on how "badly" (or closely) he lost the bet, we can't plainly list the actual CPI data from that period (which Murphy begrudgingly cited). Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Stockpile Metals[edit]

Srich, I think that bit about stockpiling metals should remain in the article. Reason: Murphy was employed as an investment analyst at Laffer & Co. so this advice continues a thread in his work. Please consider re-inserting. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if secondary sources criticized him for this COI advice that would worthwhile. But the OR/SYN bogeyman lurks otherwise. (I agree that it was lousy advice. Benjamin Graham in The Intelligent Investor critized gold buying long ago! – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying to juxtapose them to insinuate a conclusion, just that investment advice is part of his career and not irrelevant to his bio. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
If he were giving advice at Laffer to invest in metals, and seemed to continue to do so post-Laffer, and we had RS commenting on this, the particular advice (pre/during/post Laffer) might be relevant to fill out his bio. E.g., we'd learn if he were a gold-bug, temporary gold-bug, etc.. But where's there a connection to gold-bug advice in the criticism section? Compare, there are other ways to fight inflation like real estate, TIPS, high-yield dividend stocks, etc (or so I've heard). Maybe he commented on these vehicles. Or should we be linking Gold as an investment as part of the section or article? Until better RS comes in, I think the gold stuff is off-topic. – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I would think the gold is on-topic regardless of the other content. It relates to his world view as an economist. Let's see what others have to say. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SPECIFICO's comments here, and also think that his reference to buying "emergency stockpiles" of gold and silver is material to the context (i.e. his prediction of hyperinflation (or, to be charitable, double-digit inflation.) His tone in the TAC article is, it should be noted, quite alarmist and vaguely conspiratorial. Steeletrap (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, I just made a change to the criticism part contextualizing the main point of Murphy's 2009 article in The American Conservative: namely, that it is "entirely plausible" that the US Dollar may be abandoned entirely by the end of Obama's Presidency. (He specifically and non-facetiously mentions the (conspiracy-theorized) "amero" currency as a possible candidate to replace it) Maybe the stuff about stockpiling physical metals (to bury in one's yard..? :P ) could fit here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Economic Beliefs[edit]

Most (all?) of this section's claims appear to be partly or entirely normative, e.g. Murphy's views that law should be privatized and that Leftist are "cynical, bitter people." "Economics" is a social science, and as such is positive rather than normative. Thus I changed "economic beliefs" to "Moral and Political Beliefs." Someone interested in improving this article should note some value-free contributions Murphy has made to economic theory (as opposed to paraphrasing his normative defense of anarcho-capitalism). Steeletrap (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Inflation Prediction[edit]

False sounds like a misrepresntation of fact. Erroneous? What is your concern about Srich's "wager..."? I am comfortable with the sourcing of the text and agree that it should not be removed again without prior consensus to do so. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  • My concern was more about the language of the heading. They must follow guidelines for article titles. See WP:NDESC; e.g., non-judgmental and descriptive. I said not "false" or "true" (inartfully) because only the results of predictions turn out to be true or false. But saying he made a "false prediction" fails the non-judgmental requirement. – S. Rich (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Srich, I have read through the WP article and think your "judgmental" criticism is reasonable. ("false" is clearly descriptively accurate here but is also arguably judgmental) I was irritated when you claimed "no prediction is false" because that claim is obviously false, but this concern is more reasonable. I am sorry for "unilaterally" reverting your edits; I just saw what appeared to be a patently bogus rationale ("no prediction is false") and so didn't take your edit seriously. I am just going to change this back to criticism.

Steeletrap (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, my concern with Srich's title is that the "bet" is peripheral to this discussion. It's not about Murphy having a bet with Henderson (which could be a bet about the Super Bowl); it's about what Murphy was betting on (i.e., a prediction of 10% inflation, which -- as an economic prediction -- relates to his views on, and arguably (as DeLong and Krugman claim) relates to the credibility of his methodology for, economics). Steeletrap (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Srich that a prediction is not generally said to be true or false. What about erroneous, wrong, incorrect, mistaken. A theory might be proved false in case it generates a prediction which is incorrect, but I don't think the sense of false prediction sounds right. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
"Incorrect" sounds quite appropriate. (I maintain that "False" is literally true, but concede that it is rather inapt phrasing that arguably sounds a bit judgmental.) "Incorrect" inflation predictions sounds like an ideal title (much more descriptively precise than the stuff about the bet or just the vague header "criticism") What do you, rich, and others think of that phrasing? Steeletrap (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Section headings must be non-judgmental. This is a WP policy issue and this article comes within the general sanctions for Austrian economics topics. (Other section heading in the article violate policy as well.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Srich, that policy is not talking about stating a fact. The error is a fact. We're not saying "foolish" prediction, or "ignorant" prediction. It's an empirical fact that he made an erroneous prediction and it was notably erroneous. Please undo your reversion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: Reminder, this article comes under general sanctions. The BRD cycle calls for a Bold Revert and Discuss. You made your bold edit that changed something stable for 6 months 1 month. I Reverted and I made comment here. It is improper for you to re-revert the edit. I urge you to change it back. @SPECIFICO: Adding the unnecessary adjective to the section heading, "correct" or "erroneous" or "false" or "wrong" or whatever, goes beyond a mere descriptive heading. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Srich, we are going to have to use DR, because you cite a policy which clearly does not apply to this heading, either in Steeletrap's version or my own even better version. Look at the article about the Hindenburg. It's called Hindenburg disaster not Hindenburg voyage. A section is called "Engine failure" not "Operation of the Engine" it says "Incendiary Paint" not "Paint". I will open DR on this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Srich32977 I wasn't really thinking about BRD when I made that edit. I do agree that we should not do that on these pages except for extraordinary circumstances, so I reverted it.
However, I don't (at all) understand your point that the "incorrect" header is somehow unfair. I think that people confuse neutrality for 'making a blp look good'. Neutrality demands that we present the facts in a balanced matter, and has nothing to do with making a BLP look good. It is an empirical fact that inflation didn't come out the way he said it would. Since this fact got a lot of coverage in RS (for instance, by a former Assistant Secretary of Treasurer, and UC Berkeley Economist), and since that coverage centered around not the fact that Murphy made a prediction, but that it was wildly false, representing it is perfectly neutral (while obscuring it is non neutral and pro-Murphy).
By your understanding of neutrality, we shouldn't even mention that it was wrong in the text because it may make Murphy 'look bad'. Similarly, we should change the header "Impeachment" from the Bill Clinton page to the vague, unspecific header "Congressional Hearing", simply because the (empirical fact) that he was impeached makes him 'look bad.' Steeletrap (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that, if we are serious about improving these still flawed articles in the Mises and Mises-related category, we need to take a tougher approach to ensure that we stick to WP policy. When a clearly erroneous and/or fanciful application of policy is used to justify a content edit, we should move more quickly to Dispute Resolution and third party policy statements. Othewise we'll continue to waste a huge amount of time here and editors will leave or reduce their participation. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresenting edit history[edit]

@Srich - I checked your statement that Steele's edit changed a version which had remained stable for six months. That is not true. In fact the stable version was "incorrect inflation prediction" and the Bold edit was DGG's on Oct. 1, 2013. Steele then did her revert, and you should have gone to talk for discussion rather than re-inserting DGG's version. You may not like me to remind you of this, but it's really important to be accurate in your statements here -- particularly if they are bundled with little "reminders" about Sanctions. If other editors feel that they need to check your statements of straightforward facts such as edit histories it wastes a lot of editor time and attention and dilutes the collaboration we are trying to sustain here. Please reflect. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My apology. I was thinking of the discussion that occurred 6 months ago. (I struck the 6 months and made the correction.) And thank you for pointing out that DGG, an administrator, made the change. All the more reason to revert. I thank you, Steeletrap, for having done so. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You needn't apologize -- just try not to repeat this. It is very costly to the Project. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
We should re-revert. Respectfully, whether or not Dgg is an admin, I think his understanding of neutrality is mistaken. Neutrality means presenting factually accurate information without commentary, and in a manner represented by RS; "incorrect" is an empirical fact (not an opinion, or not a "judgment" unless by "judgment" you mean the objective sense in which one "judges" that one and one make two), and it's the "incorrectness" that RS are focusing on. No one would care about his economic predictions if he hadn't gotten them so crashingly wrong. Steeletrap (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I have re-set this to Steele's revert, where she was clearly within the BRD parameters, and before Srich's erroneous undo. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Correct, the only notable aspect of Murphy's predictions is that they were spectacularly wrong and that he promoted them with an untoward degree of certainty. RS supports this. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of blogs[edit]

User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge says that the inclusion of the J. Bradford DeLong and David Henderson expert (economist) blogs is improper because they used to source facts about Murphy. I ask: which facts? The fact that Murphy made an incorrect prediction is drawn from Murphy himself (and the NYT). The (expert) blogs are just evaluating his (already established) methodologies/predictions, rather than making factual assertions about him. I understand this exchange got a bit heated on the ANI, so I will AGF and ask AQFK to do the same while expressing their views. Steeletrap (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can say about this. I think my previous statements were pretty self-exploratory, but if it helps, I will try to explain again. We are not supposed to use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. The SPS expert exception does not apply to content about living people if the content involves third-parties, per WP:UGC. When it comes to biographical material, particularly when the content is contentious, we should insist upon strong sourcing. The use of blogs, advocacy organizations, and other questionable sources are simply not acceptable. I'll also add that even if living people were not involved, if the information in question is really worth reporting, a third-party reliable source will probably have done so. The deleted content can possibly be restored, but proper sourcing is required.
These are established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is what the community as a whole has decided. If you disagree with these policies and guidelines, that's fine. But the proper way to go about changing them is open discussions at the WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:RS talk pages and gain consensus for changing them. Until then, you cannot use self-published sources for claims involving third-party living people regardless of whether the author is an expert or not.
I hope this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I see Steeletrap put all that stuff back in. Someone should take it to WP:BLPN. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 19:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me why it violates BLP to have expert sources respond to facts Murphy himself admits happened? Steeletrap (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that was already answered above. At the risk of repeating myself, we are not allowed to use self-published sources as third-party sources regarding living people. If you're asking why the policy is written that way, you'll have to ask at the WP:BLP and/or WP:V talk pages. I didn't write these policies, I just try to follow them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: Actually, it looks like Steeletrap hasn't put all of it back in. In particular. they've removed "completely obtuse" which is progress, but they're still using a blog as a third-party source about living people. At least it's not as bad as it was before.
But @Steeletrap:, edit-warring isn't the way to win content disputes. Let's work this out on the talk page and see if there's a way we can come up with a version of this content that can achieve consensus. Does that sound fair? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Anyway, yes, it would be nice if people would put drafts here. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 22:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
AQFK, I strongly recommend that you remove your notice from the Austrian sanctions page. Even if an egregious "BLP" violation were occurring -- which it wasn't -- involved non-admins are not allowed to do that. If they were, the whole page would be flooded with erroneous warnings. Steeletrap (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
While Steeletrap actually is correct, and Quest should remove it asap, the page doesn't make that clear so it would help if the Admin who created that specified admin. [Added later: It already has been removed. I see that we can add {{Austrian economics enforcement}} to individual's pages. See what Admin User:BBB23 wrote to AQFK here. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 22:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Because in the Pseudoscience area, it is the most involved Editors who tag Talk Pages of those they oppose with sanction notices. I think it can intimidate Editors but it has been accepted practice in that area of sanctions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman being added again. The particular Murphy material is SPS, and it names, in its' title, third persons. Leaving out/redacting names is impossible. The SPS policy is about the source, not about how it might be incorporated into the text. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote when corrected the entry from Krugman, "finally read Krugman's note and he doesn't even say Murphy's name; why is this even in here? do we have to go to BLPN again?? geez..."
However, IF a a number of uninvolved editors said that that accurate description of what Krugman meant was ok, THEN it might be ok to say, "Murphy responded to DeLong's blog entry on his blog" and links to it. (Of course, it's just an SPS so....) But if it somehow passed that test, the only question would be, is that whole contretemps even notable enough to mention on wikipedia?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of criticism of predictions section[edit]

These edits are abundantly well-sourced and accepted without objection by most editors on this page. Deleting it wholesale is unacceptable without significant discussion and attempt to reach consensus. Discussions about the neutrality of the edits are welcome, though they strike me as straight-forward paraphrases of claims made in the sources. Steeletrap (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's silly to have this section at all because we have NOT come to the end of the Obama presidency and therefore his prediction may yet come true. Section should be removed as irrelevant. Put it back when it doesn't come true as of January 20, 2017. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 05:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
If all Murphy did was make a prediction about what is still in the future, you might have a point. However, our sources show that he's been making this same prediction for years, even though it's never shown any signs of coming true. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Murphy's religious beliefs[edit]

I've tagged the section as undue. Murphy's a finance/econ guy (of whatever sort) and putting in a whole section devoted to his "denialist beliefs" isn't encyclopedic. So what if he's written about his beliefs? has given him a platform, but we don't need to crucify him or praise him either way for using it. In any event, labeling his beliefs as "denialism", with links, is wrong. – S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Paul Samuelson or Edmund Phelps' religious beliefs? No. They are far more public about other aspects of their lives but religion doesn't come up. Because Murphy posts it on the blog and at LRC alongside policy politics and economics, it's an important part of his BLP article. Not an article entitled "the economic theories of Bob Murphy" but unquestionably his BLP, yes. Denialism is the term for his views, it's not derogatory. "Deny" is a good English word and many fringe ideas similar to Murphy's are neutrally and appropriately called "denialism."
Murphy is not notable for economics; nothing in this article specifically describes Murphy's contributions as an "economist". Rather, he is notable for his commentary on political and social issues, particularly on the highly popular (Friedman is notable for both; had he been a denialist or a literalist, this would be appropriate to note on his page. It is even more appropriate for Murphy.)
As to denialism, that is simply the most descriptively appropriate word for rejection of established fact. See: AIDS Denial and Holocaust denial; evolution is also listed on Wikipedia as a form of denialism here: Steeletrap (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"Denialism" or "denialist", as descriptive terms, are loaded with POV! In general every religion "denies" the validity of all other religions. Would we dare label any religion as denialist? So what if Murphy has a fundamentalist outlook? "He doesn't believe this or that, so he must be a denialist!" Please. – S. Rich (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
So what if it's "loaded"? It's a fact. Facts are "is" statements not should. The statement "Murphy is a denialist" is a fact, and does not (logically) entail any value judgment.
The reason every religion is not denialist is because denialism refers to denial of empirical or scientific reality, as opposed to denial (or affirmation) of metaphysical claims. However, every religion that as a matter of dogma denied as that the world is round would , yes, be engaged denialism. Steeletrap (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The "So what" is one of the WP:5P! We avoid loaded statements, and saying "it's a fact that Murphy denies evolution (and is therefore a denialist)" is directly in contradiction to NPOV. Why? Because "denialist" and "denialism" are our own spins on the significance and interpretation of his views. If Murphy said "I'm a denialist", then we could add this. But he does not. In any event, I've removed the undue tag from the section. – S. Rich (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This is bordering on sophistry. It's clear the statement is not loaded in the sense you imply. We describe assassinations, wars, and the like. Factual statements there are loaded but they are not biased. The 5P are not in danger here. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Rich, this is a pretty simple matter. Murphy rejects or is "skeptical" of the notion that human beings evolved from lower organisms. Is this denialism? Numerous RS, including Wikipedia's page on denialism, say so. Thus we indicate that Murphy is a denialist. Steeletrap (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a WP article on "denialism". Look at Denialism#Prescriptive_and_polemic. And we, as WP editors, have a mandate to avoid linguistic prescription and polemic. – S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
These links are entirely irrelevant to the RS text of this article. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh? Then show us the RS that says Murphy is a "denialist" or supports "denialism". Indeed, where is there RS about the evolution denialism movement? And who is attempting to equate Murphy's religious beliefs with "fringe" and AIDS denialism and Holocaust denialism? – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
On WP we do not cite article text as WP editing policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that?!? Rolling eyes.GIF Where did I say the links were policy or guidelines? The point is that Steele wants to use the term "denialism/denialist" and Steele gives a link to the WP article about denialism. And within that article it describes how the terms denialism and denialist are polemical and prescriptive. (Perhaps that article is incorrect.) I give the analysis again: Steele wants to use the term "denialism"; Denialism is a polemical and prescriptive term; WP:POLEMIC does not allow us to use polemics. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic, rich. What does the fact that denialism has a polemical connotation have to do with whether or not it would, in this case, be accurately applied to Murphy? The Wikipedia piece you mention cites rejection of evolution as a form of denialism. I think misunderstand WP:Polemic, which is qualified is a very particular way, as opposed to excluding all material that may be polemical in its effect; applying your interpretation of WP:Polemic, we could not say Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is a Holocaut denier in his Wiki entry. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, where is the RS that describes Murphy as a denialist? There is a difference between having religious beliefs and denialism. Consider, you have a userbox that refers to Ashkenazi Jews heritage, but you are an atheist. Does that make you a "religious denialist" or "Judaism denialist" or "Torah denialist". Like-wise, are people who adhere to their faith "evolution denialists" or "astronomy denialists" (who stopped the Sun in the sky?) or "medical science denialists" (lots of miracles and medical impossibilities are described in the Bible), etc.? You, Steele, made the tie-in to Holocaust and AIDs denialism. And you added a WP:EGG link that redirected to Creation–evolution controversy. But that article does not use the term "denialism" or "denialist". I urge you to review WP:PUSH#Examples. – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

While you have not mentioned it, perhaps the example of how WP is handling global warming will help. We have articles on Global warming, Scientific opinion on climate change, Public opinion on climate change, Media coverage of climate change, the Global warming controversy, and Climate change denial. If there was RS which reported that Murphy (or any other non-scientist) was skeptical about aspects of global warming, which would be the most appropriate link to use? Consider, suppose he says "I don't think global warming is a problem at present because I'm confident that scientific progress and innovation will be successful in overcoming the adverse aspects of global warming." Or maybe he says "The measures proposed to counteract global warming will be too small and too late to have a beneficial impact, but will harm the economy and lives of millions of people." Or he might say "I'm not convinced that global warming is taking place because I see stuff in the scientific literature that shows the earth has had many such cycles of warming and cooling." Regardless of which hypothetical statement Murphy utters, how would we characterize it? Do we make him out to be a "global warming denialist"? (Indeed, is there an "-ism" for global warming?) We might disagree with the fact that Murphy is skeptical about evolution, but so what? His comments have had insignificant impact on the creation-evolution controversy and it would be improper for us to include his views in the C-E controversy article (and related articles). Along the same lines, we cannot be characterizing his religious beliefs as an anti-science "-ism", or describe him as an adherent (e.g., an "-ist") to any such beliefs. – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That view is specious to the max. Do you think a biologist or geneticist is going to take time out of her busy day to write a scholarly article on Murphy's evolution denialism? Why would anybody scholar or not? As has recently been discussed on the ORN thread a walled-garden figure such as Murphy will not generally have your hypothetical perfect RS citations for every aspect of his activities. The larger question, of course, is whether Murphy is notable enough to have a WP article at all. I haven't examined that question. Perhaps others have already done so. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am going to post an RfD on this today or tomorrow. I think it's clear that expressing "skepticism" of evolution or saying that one can "literallly" disprove it is denialism (that is, a rejection of a established empirical reality) and distinct from the rejection (or affirmation) of non-empirical metaphysical claims entailed by membership in a religious organization. Steeletrap (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AfD or WP:RfC? An RfC I can certainly understand, as you've made 77 edits to the article (in the spirit of article improvement, I'm sure). But an AfD would look like you've given up on improvement and are making a WP:IDL nomination. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I meant to say RFC. Thank you for your recognition of my work in improving what was once an unadulterated hagiography. Steeletrap (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────::Srich, even if editor Steeletrap had meant AfD, I think that we do need to keep that possibility in the back of our minds here. This article, like de Soto and several other of the walled-garden variety Miseans' deserves a try at improvement. If after the best efforts of various editors the articles do not reveal any independent RS citations and do not otherwise document notability, the question of AfD will be inescapable. If all the efforts at improvement fail, an AfD can more clearly be evaluated than at present. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Page created by co-worker at Murphy's Institute[edit]

User:DickClarkMises worked from 2004 to 2007 at the Institute where Murphy is adjunct scholar (he stated this a few months ago on this talk page after another user asked him about a Mises Institute video in which his wiki editing of Mises articles on Wikipedia and on the Institute's wiki were celebrated 1). He created this page (2) and has contributed more edits to it than any other user (3). Shouldn't we take note of this extreme WP:COI origin in evaluating the page's current contents, and its justification for existence? Steeletrap (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a few of the Mises Institute related persons who are borderline for notability. Soto is another example. Some, like Hulsmann have had their WP articles deleted. Murphy is a strange case because he hasn't really had much visibility even at Mises Institute. He's written some popular books but nothing even in the vMI tradition of speculative thought. Jury is out on him and this article. SPECIFICO talk 05:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD on Murphy's book[edit]

Please see The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism for more info. Steeletrap (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Making slavery quoting NPOV per WP:BLP[edit]

First of all the quote from the interview is too long, but the more important thing is the original intro gave the impression that somehow he was defending slavery in the free market. We certainly do not want to do that under WP:BLP - NPOV, now do we? And leaving out the first paragraph about how slavery would fail in a free market also can help create that false impression. And we certainly do not want to do that do we? Also those Ellipsis give the impression you've left something out that might be critical. In fact those are new paragraphs. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 16:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no presumption of the kind with ellipses, in fact it's the opposite. Ellipses take the place of inessential content or awkward grammatical structure in order to sustain the train of thought. All aboard!! SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses doesn't say anything about using them to denote a new paragraph. You can ask at the talk page of the guideline if you like. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Amazing, once the paragraph becomes accurate, instead of inferring something stinky, Steeletrap remove it as not WP:RS! Actually an interview would be one of the few things it would be RS for. I also noticed that there used to be good reviews of Murphy's book. There all gone now. It's so easy to document all that deletion of RS material I'm always complaining about. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 03:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Carol, do you believe Front Page Magazine is an RS? Steeletrap (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
First, I usually check with WP:RSN to see what people say in past discussions about a source such as FrontPage Magazine. A typical statement was "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. " As I say above, an interview where a person only expresses their own views on political issues without commenting on third parties is that sort of thing. But we really don't need to go to WP:RSN to get that standard practice explained to you by uninvolved editors, do we? Also, the topic should be cut down to a short paragraph in a "views" section, with other views, none of which really need sectioning, especially with those absurdly blaring POV section headers Face-smile.svg. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Material referenced by this citation: Carney, John (October 25, 2010). "Will Paul Krugman be Shamed Into Debating an Austrian Economics Wunderkind?". CNBC NetNet. Retrieved 19 April 2013. , has been removed as a "blog". This is not the case. The author is a CNBC editor and the reference is a WP:NEWSBLOG, which is distinct from personal or group blogs. It qualifies as RS. – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this can be added. But the article is really more about attempts to "shame" Krugman than the person behind them. A sentence should be sufficient. Steeletrap (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. When we have opinion pieces, the guidance makes clear that we attribute the opinion to the writer. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Krugman:Misunderstanding of WP:BLOGS[edit]

Here (2), User:Srich32977 deletes the citation of Murphy's blog because, despite the fact that no claim about anyone other than Murphy is made in the WP article, the link to the blog mentions the name of Brad DeLong a real (non-fictional) human being who is not Murphy (NAME REDACTED). WP:BLOGS says that we can "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people". But we aren't doing that here. we're just citing Murphy's blog for a statement about Murphy; readers have to do their own off-wiki OR (e.g. by going to the blog themselves) in order to ascertain claims about third parties.

Another thing: even if we were to make claims about third parties, we don't have to use Murphy's blog to establish these claims, because all the other parties mentioned have blogged about their roles in the matter themselves (and, per WP:BLOGS, can be cited as experts commenting on Murphy's methodology). However, these other blogs have been "cleaned" by users citing "BLP." (the accusation of "BLP violation" was -- big surprise -- a bare, conclusory allegation with no specific policy based argument.) Still, there is no good reason that this material -- sourced as it is by eminent economists Krugman and DeLong, and respected economist Henderson -- shouldn't be restored, as it constitutes expert evaluation of Murphy's economic methodologies. Steeletrap (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The next policy section is WP:SPS. Murphy's blog says "I decided to do one comprehensive reply to Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman...." He goes on to make statements about third parties. The policy is about the source, not how the source is used. (And we can't escape the title of the blog posting.) Moreover, he's agreeing to a bet, and doing so involves a third party! If Murphy's "comprehensive reply" had been published somewhere else, it might be acceptable. But it is a personal blog. Not acceptable RS. Not acceptable BLP material. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the above, let's not forget that what is notable in a primary source will depend on the editor. Sure he lost a bet - but what's interesting to me are his comments on problems with the way the government calculates CPI and saying "...locked myself into a specific CPI range by a specific date. Obviously, that was a dumb thing to do". And various thoughts on why. So if it was allowable we could have a big debate on that. However, that's why we use secondary WP:RS to point out what is important and not argue about it here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Carol, Murphy himself concedes that even under if we adopted his (in my view, preposterous) proposed measure of CPI, he wouldn't have come even close to losing the bet. Let's please try to stay away from OR and report these expert economists' assessment of Murphy's prediction.
Rich, to put it plainly, your interpretation of policy is absurd. Every blog at some point makes claims about people other than its author. Your interpretation would ban every blog (with the exception of 'news sites' like HuffPO) from being used to cite anything on wikipedia. The policy specifically refers to content added to Wikipedia articles (duh). It does not refer to or require all editors to scan all extraneous content contained in the source, only that which is mentioned in the WP article. Steeletrap (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure editors can debate ad nauseam what is or is not important in a primary source; the point is that's why we try to avoid primary sources unless they are made notable by secondary ones and/or there isn't much debate among editors about their use.
Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_self-published_sources is clear: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Sometimes it gets bent a bit by consensus for innocuous info, but not for anything in the least debatable like in this case. If you don't believe us, why not ask an admin about it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please read before you write, and also try to develop your understanding of WP rules before you discuss them. The rule against using SPS/blogs to cite claims about living people is absolute, and is not "bent" for innocuous info. The one exception is using an author's own blog as information about herself or himself; but this is explicitly permitted under WP:ABOUTSELF, and thus does not constitute a 'bending' of an existing rule. No one is using blogs (other than Krugman's NYT news blog, which is not a SPS) to add claims about living people to the article. Rich is claiming that the blog cannot be used to source an assertion about Murphy because in some other (non-cited) place, the blog makes claims about other living people. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've looked into this carefully, and it's become clear that Carol and Rich are simply mistaken about policy. There's not much for them to do here except escalate. MilesMoney (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
[Clarifications in parenthesis]: [Example:]If some one wanted to use a [Wiki article subject's] blog entry to ref the sentence where someone said "Mr. X [article's subject] says he's a fan of motorcycles." and the blog [entry] merely had photos of famous people sitting on their own motorcycles with captions to that effect, it's doubtful anyone would raise an objection - i.e., it would be seen as "innocuous". However, if the [article's subject ] blog entry said all these famous people were trying to kill him because they wanted his motorcycle, editors surely would raise objections. It's when editors raise objections that SPS, etc become issues needing further debate.
In this case the 3rd parties are intrinsic to the story and are the story. It's not like he [Murphy] made the bet with his butcher or his barber.
But if you think you have a case, bring it to WP:BLPN. Maybe most editors would find it non-objectionable/innocuous enough to be used. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Kill him? What are you talking about?! I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all. MilesMoney (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarified above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Clear as mud. That didn't help at all. MilesMoney (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Given that Krugman doesn't even say Murphy's name and we have to go to an already rejected self-published blog to get the details, including his name, why is this even in here? Plus various editors' problems in the various sections on this topic with keeping in the second paragraph above. Those are sufficiently expressed concerns to keep it out. I guess we'll have to take the whole section to WP:BLPN with links to all the separate discussions if people insist on putting it back. Should have gone long ago. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This 'logic' fails the giggle test. Applying Carol's way of thinking, any statement that uses the pronoun "he" (rather than "Robert Murphy") to describe anything about the man's background should be removed, because such a statement "doesn't even say Murphy's name." We know for a fact that Krugman is talking about Murphy, which is why the material can be re-added to the article. Steeletrap (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
An Administrator removed the first paragraph writing this is bogus original research involving blogs and unreliable resources, do not re-add. So evidently Admins have been watching some of these Austrian economics BLPs for these sort of problems, even before a trip to BLPN.
Note my removal of the second paragraph was an error. But looking at it again, it can be integrated into a section on views and I have found a number of secondary sources discussing his views that actually mention his name. More to be added in the next couple days. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Steele is being kind; what you say literally makes no sense. It's not even clear enough to be wrong. MilesMoney (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Now at BLPN[edit]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_P._Murphy_re:_Paul_Krugman_quote. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, at BLPN Steeletrap revealed another ref where Krugman actually mentions Murphy and I found an even earlier one, so those two refs should be more than enough to make a nice little paragraph. Krugman seems quite taken with the guy; must be the cute little dimple on his chin. Working on it as part of views. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevant references to Krugman/Murphy[edit]

Better late than never, here are the two NY Times refs where Krugman actually mentions Murphy which are useable. Let's review them again for where and how.

Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting to rejected versions again?[edit]

Despite all the discussion on this talk page and WP:BLPN showing the poor sourcing of this information, Steeletrap has reverted it back again here. And when was DeLong's blog found to be RS?? And of course ignoring the real WP:RS above. Considering DeLong has come up so many times before, it's really time to go to WP:RSN with it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion on DeLong[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brad_DeLong_blog_RS.3F. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

1/16/14 version much better[edit]

  • Thanks to Binksternet at this diff. Krugman properly refers to DeLong (a WP:RS commenting on a Non-WP:RS) and similarly second Krugman article (though I'm just going from memory; will have to look again if any disagreement). Thoughts?
  • Another editor at WP:RSN pointed out we should make sure that the first paragraph of Double-digit inflation predictions quoting Murphy is accurate. And I think we could include a few substantive words of Murphy's reply if they accurately reflect his main point. But issues for another day. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I see User:Steeletrap reverted Binksternet's version without discussing it here or at WP:RSN. Thanks to SRich for reverting it back. Steeletrap, please read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your reverting my version and Binksternet's similar one despite all the discussion you didn't bother to engage in is the definition of WP:Edit Warring. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

New edits lead with SPS[edit]

WP:RSN discussion certainly found problems with use of DeLong. I tried to fix by adding two good Krugman sources above.

  • the editor removed the the 2011 Krugman comment on Murphy's views. I re-added it in a separate section with general description of Murphy's response, as opposed to point by point one people can read if they choose.
  • the editor now has a section where Murphy's self-published blog is mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second and Krugman comments on them last. SPS blog entries lead and frame a discussion. That's really building a POV argument on SPS, not proper use of sources.
  • It's a BLP probelm cause it emphasizes a silly bet and ridicule of Murphy for losing the bet, not serious economic issues which serious readers and editors would want to do.
  • finally, of course, Murphy will have to be quoted in response in equal weight to the accusations on inflation, when I get a chance. I guess Murphy must go to the grocery store every week to have those opinions on inflation. Face-smile.svg Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note on Murphy response[edit]

FYI, the following is an inadequate "reply" since it is not substantive: Murphy replied on his blog to Krugman and DeLong's criticisms, which he characterized as "being accused of ideological dogmatism",...

I'll admit in this case it does take a bit of economic knowledge to ferret it out. (Or to be aware of the elephant in the room he may have missed.) Just a note for now til Arbitration is further along and I can concentrate on the less pressing issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'll admit to both neither having the requisite economics knowledge to translate that to the general reader, or t talk track down that elephant and interview it...
At any rate, humor aside, I'll leave the substantive response to you, if you don't mind, and we'll take it from there.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


BM did not work for Arthur Laffer. He apparently had a brief stint at a consulting firm affiliated with and bearing the name of Dr. Laffer. Unless we can find some RS evidence that BM was involved in noteworthy activities at this not-wiki-notable company, I think the mention of Dr. Laffer should be removed. Remember these bio blurbs that foundations, publishers and websites use to promote their members and contributors are not independent and are often written by the subjects. Anybody disagree? SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So do a couple minutes of research and see what you can find that's relevant. Or I'll do it tomorrow. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)
Keep in mind that BM worked there for only a few months -- apparently after his contract was up at Hillsdale and before he landed elsewhere. Nothing much may have happened there, but good luck if you can find RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
See Arthur Laffer article which reads: Laffer is the founder and CEO of Laffer Associates in Nashville, Tennessee, an economic research and consulting firm that provides global investment-research services to institutional asset managers, pension funds, financial institutions, and corporations. Also see ref I just added. I doubt he lied before congress and put in false info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between Dr. Laffer and his investment firm, Laffer Associates, which is not notable. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the sources don't mention the name of the firm, I don't want to engage in WP:OR. But I guess we can write Arthur Laffer's firm. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually there are several sources that mention the name of the Firm. The problem is that neither the Firm nor BM's work for it appear to be notable or otherwise significant enough to warrant discussion in a biography of him. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I disagree. These sentences obviously are related, career-wise, whatever he did at that firm. He moved to Nashville, Tennessee, where he still lives, in 2006[7] to work as an analyst for Arthur Laffer's consulting firm during 2006-2007, working on stock selection models and research papers for clients.[8] He now is a financial consultant who provides forecasts regarding interest and exchange rates, growth, and inflation.[1][9][7] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
How do those sentences justify their own inclusion in the article? You will note that Laffer's company has no WP article and is therefore not notable in WP terms. What action of Murphy as Laffer Assoc. employee was noteworthy or important to the public? There are tens of thousands of employees in the USA doing stock market research. Are they all notable? Was Murphy's work particularly successful according to independent RS? We have nothing to suggest that this was of any significance at all. The burden for inclusion is on you. SPECIFICO talk 04:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Replacing specific/sourced info with vague/confusingly sourced info[edit]

At this diff editor removes specific language describing what Murphy discussed at congress and the reference for each item, replacing them with more vague language and throwing all the refs at the end. This is supposed to be an informational encyclopedia. Why make it so vague and remove refs from each issue ref'd? Also I'm pretty sure I've seen mentions of at least two of these elsewhere in acceptable RS, so feel free to add an "additional sources" tag as a reminder. Or even find and them :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Noting that some of the material had been removed with a "so what, lots of people testify" type comment, the change serves as a compromise which does provide encyclopedic information without undue emphasis. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a bad compromise and should be reverted. A good one is finding more info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

FEE Book Review[edit]

Please be sure that any text conforms to what is stated in the source. Please see my edit comment reverting misrepresentation of source RE: Murphy's discussion of Coolidge-era policies. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

At this diff SPECIFICO writes: Coolidge, President, did not have a 'monetary policy' -- that is set by the Fed. Source mentions fiscal policy.
The source writes: Murphy favors the idea that it was monetary policy being far too easy in the 1920s, thus creating a bubble that inevitably had to burst. I probably should have mentioned the bubble aspect as well. Please read more carefully. Are there any other criticism before I restore the version which you inaccurately removed?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The bubble has nothing to do with my comment. Monetary policy and fiscal policy are not the same thing. It is not acceptable to misrepresent simple statements in the cited source. If you do not understand the subject matter, please leave it to other editors to write the article text based on the source. If you do understand the subject matter, please be more careful in your wording of text. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I did not say monetary and fiscal policy are the same. The book reviewer failed to specify "fiscal" policy when he wrote: For example, he makes clear that Hoover was not a free-market stalwart but instead a big-government Republican. He criticizes Hoover’s labor and wage, trade, immigration, spending, and tax policies, which all worked to deepen the Depression. I could more fully quote the reviewer if you like. And I did not go into detail about what the reviewer says Murphy writes comparing Bush and Obama to other presidents. Here's what I wrote that you removed (below in italics).
Murphy's 2009 book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal" wrote that United States President Calvin Coolidge's monetary policy "being far too easy" caused the Great Depression in America and that Herbert Hoover's "big government Republican" policies exacerbated it. He also compared these policies to those of presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.[1]
I do see we can replace "wrote" with said/states and specify that the reviewer says that Murphy compares Bush to Hoover and Obama to FDR to be totally accurate. What other objections might you have? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You're repeating your misstatement above. Coolidge was President. Monetary policy during his administration was not set by him. The source doesn't say that the monetary policy was Coolidge's. The review refers to Herbert Hoover's taxation and spending policies. These are not "monetary policy". Please be sure you understand the source and do not paraphrase it or insert OR connections or revisions which are not in the source. My comment above summarizes the reason for my edit. Where do you think you see the reviewer saying the words you've italicized above, stating that Murphy "wrote that United States President Calvin Coolidge's monetary policy "being far too easy" caused the Great Depression"? Those words do not appear in the source. Please review this thread and re-read the source if you continue to have any concerns. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First, SPECIFICO's current short version of what the book is about is insufficient since it mentions only one issue and does not mention points the reviewer thought equally important. Below quotes indicate order of material summarized. (Brief to avoid WP:CV.) Below that is what I think is a more accurate summary.

Quote:causes of the Great Depression...monetary policy being far too easy in the 1920s, creating a bubble that ... burst... Hoover was a big-government Republican...(details shared about his policies could be added)... Hoover-nomics and FDR’s New Deal created the longest and deepest economic downturn in U.S. history... President Bush was Hoover-like in his big-spending ways... like FDR, President Obama has offered an unprecedented agenda of government expansion...
Summary: Murphy writes that easy monetary policy in the 1920s created a financial bubble that burst, causing the Great Depression; that President Herbert Hoover's subsequent "big-government Republican" policies deepened the Depression; and that these, plus Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs, created the "longest and deepest economic downturn in U.S. history". Murphy compares President Bush's big-spending policies to Hoover's and writes that like Roosevelt, President Obama has a government expansion agenda.

The summary can be tweaked, but it should reflect the reviewer's full description of the book says and not just emphasize Murphy's monetary views which differ from those of critic Paul Krugman. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of inserting this fatuous clean-up template, the better course would be simply to add verifiable text from the cited source. The text which was removed was OR and it misstated the content in the reference. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I don't want to get accused of edit warring by reverting to my new version above without any response from others. If you don't have a problem with the new summary, I'll add it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
When you use the "ping" template, please be sure to leave a space after the last bracket. Otherwise the template doesn't appear to work.
The current article text is accurate, but does not summarize all of the content of the review. Your proposed language doesn't really add much and if anything narrows the representation of Murphy's view. I will try to write a longer few sentences which summarize the key points of the review, although I may not get that done today. Meanwhile, if you'll reread the entire review you'll see that the reviewer points out several aspects in which Murphy's view departs from that of most free-market oriented observers. The reviewer also indicates some problematic issues which Murphy's view raises and does not resolve. If you'd also like to try your hand at a more complete text, that would be great. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with short version to avoid unnecessary discussion. Write a longer one if you prefer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying you're OK with the text as it now stands? That would be fine with me. On the other hand, the alternative you wrote on this talk page raises the issues I mentioned above. I'm not going to be able to finish this evening, but looking at it again, it's clear that the Bush and Obama bits are asides and that the subject is the depression of the 1930's. So I wouldn't include the comment on recent events in a very brief summary. Also, the review points out that Murphy asserts that the Great Depression was the inevitable result of Coolidge-era policies but that there were another 7 years of prosperity before the Depression. There's also some interesting content about a shortfall of demand in the Roosevelt years (sounds mainstream Monetarist or Keynesian to me) which seems to fly in the face of Austrian Business Cycle Theory. I will try to look again tomorrow. Perhaps other editors will share their views in the meantime. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I meant short like my rewrite; would not rewrite if liked current. Applying lessons of Great Depression and New Deal are obviously a primary reason to write such a book so the fact that he applies them is hardly an aside. Also, this is not an opportunity to prove your personal points using sources, it is a boring summary of what the reviewer says the book is about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless Murphy or some RS has stated "a primary reason to write such a book" it doesn't matter what may be obvious to WP editors, we can't use it in the article -- particularly in a BLP. Note, the title of the book tells us its topic. Your "short rewrite" misrepresents the source in the manner I've indicated above. If you're accusing me of inserting a personal "point" with the current text sourced to this book review, please state your concern explicitly. Are you saying that my text is not boring but your text is boring? Please be more clear and quote the article text and source text to which you refer. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone. The source's]] second paragraph reads: Since the last few months of 2008, the Great Depression has been thrust back into the national debate about economic policy. The deepest recession in more than six decades, including a credit meltdown and steep decline in production, has generated serious speculation about “another Great Depression.” If so, what is needed to avoid it? And who or what was to blame for this mess? and the final three final paragraphs are about what Murphy writes in the last chapter about the relevance to present. Did you read the whole thing? This is far more relevant than the erudite points you wanted to stress. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel that you're being neither responsive nor civil in your comment. Your original text cited to this source made no mention of the content your now emphasize. Instead, your original text covered the same content which you now denigrate as "erudite points [I] wanted to stress." The only difference between your initial version and my corrected version was that yours grossly misstated the content of the cited source and confused fiscal and monetary policies and the policy authority of the President of the US. If you'd like to continue to work on this content with me, please refrain from personal remarks. What is not impartial in the current article text? How does your policy link apply to the current article text? You're citing the reviewer's opening opinion about current events, which are a lead-in to the discussion of Murphy's book about the Great Depression. The article we're working on here is about Murphy, not the journalist who wrote this magazine article about Murphy's book. Please stick to the topic at hand and please respond to the specific points I am addressing with respect to your stated concerns. SPECIFICO talk 05:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know why SPECIFICO is talking about the version before my revised proposal above labeled Summary. However, from your comments I'm willing to try another version I'll put in a box so there's no confusion. And if we still can't seem to communicate our differences, we can do a two column box comparing the two versions and do an RfC to see which version noninvolved editors think best reflect the review and its usefulness for Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol, it appears that you engaged in OR through your conflation of fiscal policy with monetary policy. You argue that you did no such thing, but your reasoning behind that argument is, to be frank,incomprehensible. Can you please restate your thoughts in a clear and concise manner? Steeletrap (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
In what? My first version? It's no longer relevant since I replaced it with the second version labeled Summary. If there's some minor clarification necessary in the summary, just explain it. Guessing games takes way too much time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Human Events is RS[edit]

Per this diff, removal of a book review from Human Events, what evidence do you have it is not for economics or book reviews? If evidence is not presented - or you choose not to take this to WP:RSN - I'll revert it. Please explain. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are threatening an edit war and I advise you not to edit war. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have NOT reverted it yet but could without it being an edit war. I'm just giving Steeletrap a chance to explain the edit. Feel free to do it yourself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: @SPECIFICO: and anyone else: Still waiting for a substantive response here. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this was removed. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism does not seem to be an academic economics work, but book aimed at a popular audience, so this book review would be appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit summary reads: Human Events' website is absolutely not RS for economics, and it is absurd that this even has to be debated) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be sufficient justification given that this appears to be a general interest book. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies – the Human Events material is not being presented as an authority on economics, only as a review of a general interest book. Qualifies as RS. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion as to whether it's RS or whether this is the best way to include mention of this book in Murphy's bio. One problem, however, is the ambiguity as to whether the article presents Murphy as an economist or a pop icon and pundit. Let's all read the whole review. Among other things it says the book is made for bathroom reading... "It has flush written all over it". That strikes a rather dissonant chord here. I don't recall having seen that kind of review of any other economist's work. Is this the bio of an economist or of a popular media figure? Whatever the answer, I think this is a challenge for editors of this article. The book takes a position, controversial even among Austrians, of a radical revisionist view that the Great Depression was inevitable even before Herbert Hoover took office in 1923. For a book presenting such an extraordinary theory, can't we find any RS which presents an evaluation or analysis of this work from something closer to a scholarly or even expert source? SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
SPECIFICO: Better late than never check out this search of and economics. Many returns because it's used over and over again on wikipedia. I always do such a search to see how many times something is used before I challenge it. Or to see if it needs to go to WP:RSN for other uninvolved editors' opinions.
Once again let me remind you to read the large section called: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Not to mention #7 Scientific journals and research papers and 8 Academic language. It's written for the general public who don't really make the distinctions you make above. If Murphy isn't notable as an economist in your opinion he's still got general notability which is of interest to the encyclopedia. Do we need to take this elsewhere? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The book is indeed a 'general interest' book for libertarian laymen. The problem is that Murphy and the other Misesians present their books as serious economic works. We can't let them present their books as serious contributions to economics, while applying non-economic 'general interest' standards only when it comes to criticism and evaluation. Steeletrap (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Carol, I am astounded by your reasoning. The fact that "Human Events" is cited in articles where the word "economics" appears has no bearing on the arguments made here. Moreover, most of the "returns" you refer to have nothing to do with economics. The first six "returns" (none of which you bothered to read) are 1) Human Events's own wiki page 2) A Republican lobbying firm 3) Murphy's book 4-5) Republican party pundits 6) Murphy's Mises Institute co-worker, fmr Suffolk County Community College Professor of History, Tom Woods. Steeletrap (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Right now three think it should be kept in; two want it out. Do we have a stalemate that needs to go to WP:RSN? Or should we just end the discussion and put it in? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In view of the comments on other remarks found in the book review, it would seem that the cited quote is not representative of the overall position represented by the authors. It does seem to represent Murphy's book as something that is more mainstream than libertarian, and if the "distilled “complex concepts down to a convenient and accessible form”", those "concepts would relate to Murphy's libertarian or Misian or whatever fringish category of "concept", but not to something that academic economics professors would likely take as viable. Since the status of the book is not academic, it is improper to represent it as presenting academic material. Aside from that, the review seems to treat the book more acerbically and sarcastically than the quoted comment indicates.
OK, I read the review, and the final statement is "...perfect for casual reading or providing an introductory understanding of economics to a young conservative". That says two things: first, it is not a "serious" book on econommics"; and second, it's intended audience is not "general", but "young conservative(s)".
What I find striking is that this article from a blatantly ideological publication is being promoted as RS in a manner that doesn't seem to be consistent even with its content, while the "blog" of a prominent academic economists that describes Murphy as refusing to modify his "ideological beliefs" is trying to be written off because it is not a "professional blog". Where is NPOV in that equation? If it is the case that BLP rules are being used to disqualify the DeLong blog, that would seem to be a problematic approach.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:58, 08:27 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Murphy does not work in academia. He is notable under WP:Author and/or General notability. His Institute for Energy Research bio mentions his research for them and that he writes his own books and other educational doings and two paragraphs on his role as a popularizer and educator for general audiences, including through the von Mises Institute. Thus Human Events obviously relevant.
Feel free to remove the DeLong related material to that section since it's not relevant here. Though reading WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS might clear it up for you. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say that Murphy wasn't notable or that Human Events wasn't relevant, just questioned the manner in which the sources are being applied in the article.
It seems that maybe the use of DeLong's blog is problematic under the BLP policy, but not the Krugman commentary on DeLong's post criticizing Murphy. Accordingly, the material seems relevant and in conformity with policy.
I note that the RS/N discussion is fairly close with regard to the DeLong blog, and I think that these sourcing issues are related to each other insofar as they both deal with ideology.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:06, 19:21 24 January 2014 (UTC)
So how is Human events misused? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
My apologies for forgetting my original reasoning in feeling Human Events was RS. I frequently have seen reports, book reviews and even opinion pieces from less prestigious universities' student newspapers used in articles. And now I just remembered (duh) this has been discussed at WP:RSN with the reliability of the specific publication being the decisive factor. See 2012Harvard Crimson discussion; 2010 discussion, [2009] general discussion, 2008 discussion (re: Daily Bruin); another 2008 general discussion. And as you can see Harvard Political Review is the official publication of the Harvard Institute of Politics. Certainly has more editorial oversight than the Daily Bruin. If I'd brought this up immediately we could have avoided all of the above, and the trip to RSN, don't you think??? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Harvard Political Review is not the Harvard Crimson if that's what you're saying. Anyway even the revered Crimson might be RS for news on some matters, but not opinion on others. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Krugman blog statement[edit]

This edit inserts, among other misrepresentations, a reference to "inflation of the money supply" which is not stated by Krugman. I'm not going to touch this for now, but I urge any editor who's watching this page to examine this edit consider whether to revert it or to rewrite it to conform to the source material. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy errors can be corrected. AGF and don't call it a "misrepresentation". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Please, don't read in any more than what I said. It's not a personal remark. The text misrepresents the source and therefore failed verification. It needs to be fixed, as does the entire edit, either by you or any other editor. I don't wish to be further involved here at present. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Krugman on Murphy[edit]

At this diff removal of material below with relevant edit summary being rmv BLP violation. (Krugman does not criticize Murphy. He criticizes ABCT,...

Section title: Capital theory, interest and the business cycle
Text: In January 2011 economist Paul Krugman criticized Murphy in his New York Times blog, commenting on a Murphy article on “Capital Theory” published at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website. Krugman wrote that it was the “best exposition I’ve seen yet of the Austrian view that’s sweeping the GOP”. He criticized Murphy’s view which he described as being that an economic boom is like China’s disastrous Great Leap Forward where “a temporary surge in consumption” resulted in “degradation of the country’s underlying productive capacity”, leading to unemployment. He questioned whether there was evidence that booms damaged the economy’s capacity.[2][3] Murphy replied at his blog summarizing Austrian school positions on capital theory, interest, and the business cycle and answering Krugman's specific objections.[4]

What does he actually say? ...Someone, I don’t know who at this point, sent me to this post by Robert Murphy, which is the best exposition I’ve seen yet of the Austrian view that’s sweeping the GOP — and I mean that sincerely, never mind the puerile insults aimed at yours truly....Murphy does offer a little story ...So what is the essence of this Austrian story? Basically, it says that what we call an economic boom is actually something like China’s disastrous Great Leap Forward, which led to a temporary surge in consumption but only at the expense of degradation of the country’s underlying productive capacity. And the unemployment that follows is a result of that degradation: there’s simply nothing useful for the unemployed workers to do. I like this story, and there are probably other cases besides China 1958-1961 to which it applies. But what reason do we have to think that it has anything to do with the business cycles we actually see in market economies? And then he criticizes the view in general.

Some might take this as criticism. If you feel it is commentary then change the word. Don't just remove what he says. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? What do you think is criticism? Why? What article text do you propose as an alternative? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 05:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is about the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, not Murphy. Murphy is mentioned because he provides a clear and well-written exposition of that theory. But Krugman is not assessing Murphy's original contributions or theories or hypotheses here. Steeletrap (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You raise a good point, but this article is one of the few independent sources that even mention Murphy so I think we should be reluctant to remove it entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In that section, it would be interesting to read more on how Murphy defended his views in the American Spectator Conservative. — goethean 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Did he write an article for American Spectator? Could find one in a quick search. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
My point is moot now that the details of the bet have been removed. — goethean 19:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: Sorry, forgot to ping you with my question above. RSVP. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Gothean: American Conservative material probably belongs in a WP:RS version, once DeLong SPS removed. Don't feel like looking at non-policy compliant version in there right now.
More refs have only begun to be added. (I've just started a To Do List Table for the dozen or more articles needing such info and threatened with AfD.) First, you have noticed two Krugman articles that actually mention Murphy, one of them removed? And you've notice the Human Events book review, also removed? And there is more to add on his Congressional appearances and other news sources. Feel free to do some research and add material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: wrote: What do you think is criticism? Why? What article text do you propose as an alternative?
Answer is tweak to first sentence of my version above: In January 2011, in his New York Times blog, economist Paul Krugman commented on a Murphy article on “Capital Theory” published at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website. etc remainder of text as above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: I don't understand why Krugman provides "expert evaluation of Murphy's views" in your previous edit, but then you remove the material. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's undue. The article regarding Austrian Business Cycle Theory isn't even about Murphy. Krugman says he provided a clear, well-written explanation of the theory, but the rest of the article has nothing to do with Murphy. It should be deleted per WP:Undue and WP:Syn. Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The fact Krugman leads in his second paragraph by saying that Murphy's article "is the best exposition I’ve seen yet of the Austrian view that’s sweeping the GOP" is itself of great interest. That he then does a second and a third paragraph related to a story that Murphy tells about his views also makes it of great interest. That he then launches into his own views is standard and even predictable, but does not obviate the importance of what he says about Murphy earlier. And the text just summarizes those facts briefly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

None of that stuff is about Murphy. Why don't we just briefly mention Krugman's positive remarks about Murphy's exposition of the theory? Creating an entire section on Capital and Interest based on an article that barely even mentions Murphy is undue. Steeletrap (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC) We can say something like: "While Paul Krugman dismisses the Austrian theory of the Business cycle on both logical and empirical grounds, he credits Murphy with "writing the best exposition of it" he has seen. Anything else from Krugman is synthesis, as it's not about Murphy but the theory. Steeletrap (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Why lead with a negative? And why have a whole section on the prediction? A section called "Economic views" with those three paragraphs and other material that will be added soon enough should do the trick. Something that is noted by 3 or 4 reliable sources is more what should have own section anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The inflation prediction is the only economic theory propounded by Murphy that has garnered substantial RS attention from economists. (Krugman and DeLong, as well as David Henderson and Bryan Caplan.) It is central to his notability and thus deserves its own section. Not so with the Capital and Interest stuff. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of Henderson and Caplan and DeLong's comment are only notable because Krugman mentions them. As for what has most substantial attention, further research may clarify. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I know User:Steeletrap knows what edit warring is and I don't have to leave a user talk page warning. Another editor already left that message in an edit summary. This revert is unacceptable: [5] and already countered above is it's edit summary mv Paul Krugman's criticism of ABCT which has nothing to do with Murphy. (Murphy mentioned in cursory fashion as providing well-written summary of ABCT, but not subject of article))

Also this edit with edit summary restoring complementary primary sources (this complements RS discussion of Murphy's erroneous predictions)) was edit warring after two editors removed it as UNDUE detail from primary source. Steeltrap never opened a discussion on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Carol. You're right and I concede error. I do think those who are reverting did so with no rationale whatseover on their edit summaries, but I shouldn't be violating BRD on such a sensitive article. Steeletrap (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted more primary sourced/cherry-picked/pov edits[edit]

Listing my reverts momentarily with edit summaries. Please review WP:BLP/NPOV/Primary sources.

  • 1 (remove cherry picked WP:OR/synth from primary source));
  • 2, remove cherry picked quote from primary source; doubtless not main point of interview and even if makes readers more sympathetic to him, questionable entry; explain at talk) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Krugman debate belongs after other Krugman material[edit]

First, at this revert 3 I wrote (again, relying on primary sources to tell own POV story after removing section where Secondary source tells the story;s please review BLP/NPOV/Primary Source policie)

OK, I mistook it for a rewrite of the removed section on Capitol Theory above. Then reviewing it I saw it was a whole new topic with the CNBC RS. However, this is part of the whole Krugman vs. Murphy issue which should include all three stories:

  • inflation prediction (where again has been added too much primary sourced material)
  • Capitol theory
  • invitation to a debate (which should lead with CNBC description). It should not stuck in life and work as if it was irrelevant to the below which is sloppy editing.

Splitting up two stories (inflation and debate invite) and removing one (capitol theory) is just incredibly POV. I'll rewrite it. And hopefully I'll get a chance to add other WP:RS info was working on today. Whether it needs to be part of a Murphy vs. Krugman section is another issue for another day. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol, your statement above is very muddled and unhelpful. Can you please try to restate it in a clear and concise fashion? Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Getting Krugman section right[edit]

Re: This diff

  • Brought this to BLPN since still haven't had a clear opinion from third parties Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Synth_to_infer_RS_mentions_individual_by_name.3F.3F
  • Chronology: Why revert the Chronology so not clear that Krugman criticizes Murphy two days in a row and that the call to debate is a reaction to that? That's just obsfucating issues...
  • Removal of "Capitol theory" section at this diff with edit summary "(Murphy mentioned in cursory fashion as providing well-written summary of ABCT, but not subject of article))". Murphy wasn't subject of other two either, especially the one where Krugman doesn't name him, so this seems like a bogus rationale. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious Claim ?[edit]

I am puzzled by the claim, sourced to bios and other sources presumably written by Murphy, that he sells economic forecasts in his role as consultant. Presumably a "forecast" is expressed as a quantitative estimate, yet as a Misesian Austrian economist, Murphy eschews quantitative and empirical methods. Do we have any secondary reference which describes Murphy as a forecaster? SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Murphy's predictions are often quantitative (e.g. double digit inflation). His means of getting to them are, however, strictly qualitative. He, 4H, Gary North, Llewellyn and the rest claim economics can be derived solely from the armchair and through deductive reasoning. Every important mathematicians/logicians (read: actual experts in priori/deductive reasoning) in the last 100 years disagrees with them on this. Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Just because you assume they all have exactly the same viewpoints on everything doesn't mean it's true. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Carol, I recommend you watch the "Austrian versus Chicago School" Youtube debate, featuring Murphy and David Friedman. He certainly rejects evidence in econ. Steeletrap (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: Whether it's "true" is irrelevant. WP represents sources according to their incidence in the literature. Murphy could be the Oracle of Delphi but if he is the only one to follow his methods or reach his conclusions, then in WP terms it is not mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Astrologists make forecasts, and they reject the empirical method. I am inclined to accept that he makes forecasts and any questions about the methodology should be addressed in articles about Austrian economics. TFD (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Congressional testimony[edit]

I have no objection to keeping this, and disagree with SPECIFICO's attempts to remove. It doesn't appear to be too notable but can fall under WP:Aboutself. Steeletrap (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not doubting that he did testify, but we have no secondary RS which states it was of any significance or public interest or note. SPECIFICO talk 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually in my travels I did notice his testimony was mentioned in a couple RS and even criticized by an environmental organization or two. Probably saved ref somewhere, just haven't had time/energy to add info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Nearly a month later: Has anyone found secondary RS discussion which establishes the encyclopedic importance of Murphy's testimony on behalf of his employer? SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What's Going on With Mises Institute Related Pages[edit]

I am an academic economist from Alabama. I have had dealings with the Mises Institute before and am familiar with their work and "heterodox" economics methodology.

It seems to me that there is a sustained effort on the Wiki to remove information about Mises Institute scholars that tends to show that they are outside the mainstream. I have re-added the removed information to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics for a background on some of the problems encountered. The problem with this and many other articles about LvMI writers is that there is scant reference to them in reliable secondary sources to write anything beyond a stub. Without those we cannot determine what is important about their views and policy prevents us from overreliance on primary source, i.e., their writings. Most Americans believe in creation, which is a more extreme position than Robert P. Murphy holds. Are we going to add evolution sections to every U.S. biography? TFD (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. Sorry, I'm new here and didn't know that policy prohibited primary sources. GabeAuburn (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
They are not prohibited, but their use is limited per WP:PRIMARY. TFD (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)