Talk:Jesús Huerta de Soto/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Review of book

(Moved from article to talk page by Dick Clark 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

Meaning, substance, and implications

De Soto effectively critiques Monetarist and Keynesian theories as different aspects of the same sophism in Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles beginning on page 509. Subjectivist Revolution writers such as Bohm Bawerk are cited with page number specificity and I spent more time, so far, reading the works cited - than his works. De Soto's work appears to be worthy and sound: worth many weeks of perusal. I seem to have passed over much the material he cites in silence and with a lack of understanding. He brought it to life and gave it meaning not found originally by me. Thanks to De Soto, that error is being corrected.

My ignorance admitted and being corrected, it was a pleasure to become the owner of such a fine work. Here here! Nice reading.

18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning, substance, and implications

Granted Huerta has a great book, but not much is known of him to warrant an entry here at the moment unless someone is willing to provide a list of some of his papers plus some of the unique ideologies he stands for.

For example his book, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles advocates for free markets over central banks or other government controlled monetary institutions. His advocacy for free imigration and the ethics of capitalism also need to be mentioned.

18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs

I have added the first ISBN to enable easy location of vendors for his book(s). (Click on the ISBN if you have not tried this before.)

At the moment, Amazon has the ISBN wrong in their database for the English translation of Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, but I have notified them of their error. With a little luck, they will have fixed it by the time anyone attempts the link. -- RayBirks 16:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

FYI, I have just added Seńor de Soto's name to the de Soto disambiguation page. -- RayBirks 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-English de Soto books

I'm hoping this link will work [1] to show de Soto has a listing of 41 items in WorldCat. 17 Spanish, 9 English, 4 Polish, 3 German, 2 French, 2 Italian, 1 Dutch, 1 Russian. While many of these are overlapping items, the list serves to show he has an international audience. OCLC 800522200 gives us a journal, but I couldnt say what sort of item this is. I think it is the title of the series that he produced. I do have 2 magazine hits: I'll post them in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A list shows nothing if we don't know the descriptions of the items. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is already got a listing of works, and I do not propose to include all 41 items. (Also, some of the WorldCat listings overlap.) But I posted the link as a source for others to work off of. And it tends to show that deSoto has a mainly Spanish audience. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Soto's website

Just found his bibliography from his web site. Barely looked but think I found a couple peer reviewed works there. Of course, I should have just studied his English Translated website better[see below]; will look there for more goodies tomorrow. Will look more tomorrow unless you beat me too it and put up most prestigious works. In fact there's lots of stuff there, though obviously can't use anything too self-promotional. Of CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽
Carol, what you cite is not a bibliography of de Soto's works but rather a bibliography of works he cites in one of his books. If John Q libertarian cite a Milton Friedman essay in his freshman ECO 101 paper, that does not mean he wrote the Friedman essay. (Some de Soto works are indeed cited there, but the ones I've looked at so far are published by the "usual suspects".) Steeletrap (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, it was a listing that included some of his works. That translation page is tricky for some reason, and you have to stick http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm into google translate and keep playing with it to get to the many relevant pages. Yeah - I see now he has frames. So you have to go to each page (including under CV) and just copy and paste the Spanish text to translate that page into English. But it's all there and I doubt he'd lie about any of it :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, FYI: Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves reads: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Curriculum Vitae, article lists, etc can be useful to lead to secondary sources or can be used when there aren't others, as long as reasonable number used. If there's a stalled debate third parties can always be asked to comment. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
At this diff User:Specifico removed sourced content from Soto's CV? Specifically, He was Vice President and member of the Board of Directors of the Mont Pelerin Society from 2000 to 2004.REF:Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see Curriculum Vitae, Otros Meritos. It's usuable per WP:SPS above. Do you have some problem with his veracity? If not, please put it back. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Mount Pelerin at Otros page, aka "failed verification" -- maybe it was on a different page or link? If so back it goes. 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You should have said failed verification here; missed it in the diff. Did you go to the SECOND page of Curriculum Vitae, Otros Meritos? # 10 says: Vicepresidente y miembro del “Board of Directors” de la Mont Pèlerin Society (2000-2004) elegido por unanimidad en la General Meeting de la Sociedad que tuvo lugar en Santiago de Chile, el 17 de Noviembre de 2000. (See google translate.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a relief. Put it back with the corrected citation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove ref tag?

I think we can safely remove the references tag from the article, but don't want to run up against WP:3rr so just adding material now. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lame-O award

Goes to this content: "In a tribute to Murray N. Rothbard, Soto described the influence the economist had on his thinking and his personal relationship with Rothbard over many years.[8]"

If that essay is significant, could an editor who is familiar with it please summarize some substantive content to replace the empty mention currently in the article. As it stands, it leaves one asking why this was mentioned, rather than any of Soto's many other essays and articles? SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lame-O? That doesn't sound very civil. Anyway, it takes time to put things together. Sometimes one puts them in the order one finds them. I haven't even started looking into books.google, where I'm sure larger context will be found to support mentioning the tribute. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be much more informative for the reader to focus on Soto's substantive contributions to Economics. How many tens of thousands of tributes to Ronald Reagan have been filed and forgotten? We don't mention in the lede of everyone who's written homage to Reagan, Hayek, Mises, or even J. Edgar Hoover and Robert Moses. The fact that Soto crossed paths with Murray or that Soto had Murray on his mind is not the most important part of Jesus' contribution as an economist. Soto has written on various topics of economics, some of which differentiate him from other writers. These would be the important points to cover in an article, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add that content to help save the article from deletion. The more the merrier. But first we have to source what is already there and is important. Articles are not built in a day, especially by unpaid volunteers. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that none of the current content demonstrates his notability. It's not that it's poorly sourced, it's that it is all Googled trivia and drivel. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
To repeat a version of the above...I haven't even begun to look in books.google where the hardcore stuff is. First we have to ref existing material. That's the way editors who like to add constructive content roll... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird Language

There's a lot of weird language in this article, as if maybe Google Translate was used instead of figuring out the English equivalents. For example, was Soto presented with a chair as a graduation present from Grad School when he joined whatever University? Did he get what English speakers call a Law Degree one year after his MBA? Is he another Mitt Romney double threat? The article needs to be intelligible to English Speakers, maybe even to Americans as well. As it stands, I can't tell whether this guy is an actual academic or a talk-circuit pundit who lectures at the local vocational school. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

First, the chair mention is from one of the the two Mises interviews and I pretty much wrote it the way he said it since not being an academic I don't know what the phrase means, though I've heard it. In one of the interviews he also talks about how the Spanish (as in Spain) higher education system differs from American and how his university (can't remember which one) is run. I was thinking a sentence or two on that might be of interest, but didn't want to run into the off-topic police. Also, if you look at his CV/Títulos Académicos description he lays it all out. Maybe you can figure it out better than I can if you have some experience with non-American academia. Collaboration means helping solve these mysteries ;-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear from the Mises Institute interview that Carol uses as her source that "chair" means a different thing in Spain than "endowed chair" means in the United States. de Soto says that "All professors ... hold their chairs for life". This sounds like some sort of title that Spanish economists get after graduate school.
On a broader level, don't you (SPECIFICO) consider it mildly amazing that everyone who offered a specific argument (a couple users gave no reason whatsoever) for saying "keep" for Jesus not only had a dubious rationale but one that can actually be falsified by a few minutes Googling? (e.g., the idea that Krugman talked about Jesus as opposed to an anonymous commentator on his blog; the idea that Mont Pelerin Society is a prestigious academic group akin to the National Academy of Sciences; and the idea that Jesus holds an endowed chair in economics). Steeletrap (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I am greatly distressed, in general, that editors would use Google tools and Google Translate text to generate encyclopedia content, as if those quickies could substitute for genuine research, familiarity with the article's subject matter, and in this case understanding of Jesus' work. The unfortunate result is that WP articles can then serve to propagate a characteristic laziness of thought and intellectually vacuous speech. There are published comments from various RS that tend to be dismissive of Jesus' efforts to portray himself as a serious academic economist, but I have not collated or fully evaluated them for use in the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe when one is hired for a first teaching job at a Spanish college, they give you a chair for your office. Here in the US, they can be purchased at most college bookstores, for example here [2]. I hope some editor will further research the Spanish tradition and practice of giving chairs to junior college faculty. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Government owned university

That's what Jesus calls his employer in the Mises.org source. I suggest we follow that. Srich, any objection to undoing your recent change? SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he was explaining that the important Us in Spain are government owned (which also explains his civil servant chair), as compared to the US where we have a few privately owned important Us. "Public university" is the commonly accepted term for English readers. Also, "government owned" has an implication of state-controlled to it, which I don't think he was intending. I'd like to stick with the simpler, less awkward, yet completely accurate version we have now. Let's hear what other editors think. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Jesus speaks fluent English so any nuance in his words must be respected as reflecting his intention. Given his further remarks in the interview, I think it's clear he meant to imply all of the shades of "government owned" in this context. Please undo your edit. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
He's remarkably fluent in English and highly articulate in his Mises.org interview (much more so than most Americans), so it's clear that the use of the term "government owned" is deliberate. Steeletrap (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with government owned in quotes. Nevertheless, (per above section) silly jokes about other country's academic from editors who allege to be academics in this country really are... silly and off topic... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't notice me voting for deletion of this article, do you? I hope it turns out this is a serious notable guy and that a great article will be written about him. If you are accusing me of being an "academic," please don't. I outgrew that long ago and went on to bigger things. I do still have my chair in the library in my offices here. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I too am open to being proven wrong about de Soto. But the "keep" votes so have all been based on either falsified or (in your case, Carol) vague/unspecific and therefore meaningless criteria. So we aren't making much progress. Steeletrap (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Full Reserve Banking Constitutes Fraud even in a free market.

Please furnish the quote and page number from the source that supports Jesus holding that view. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote was provided in the context of what Rothbard thinks. I did not notice that you had removed the Rothbard reference, so I'm not sure if you'll accept modification which includes the quote but excludes Rothbard. (Perhaps I should have posted an {{inuse}} message.) In any event, the references are magazine articles and the HighBeam Research link does not provide page numbers for the particular items. This effort to expand the section certainly needs more work. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If I am correct in understanding you to say that the source is only your personal surmise, please remove the text immediately. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You are not correct – . There are two sources supporting the single sentence that I added in an effort to expand the article a small bit more. I'm the last person you'd see adding their personal surmise. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I remember reading that somewhere else, since I don't agree with that view in the private sector so I was disappointed by it. But hopefully I misunderstood and he's actually a free market money guy (like Hayek and Rothbard). Anyway, I hope to find evidence of the latter. Books.google i sthe place to look. Time will tell. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Various sources for general info and his banking theories

Turns out that various books google searches do keep coming back to that topic, even when I search other topics and his name, and you are correct, SRich (much to my dissappointment). Considering he is an anarcho-capitalist (yes, ref'd info exists), I wonder if he actually wants the private protection agencies to shut down fractional reserve banking entities for fraud? Oh, yuck. Anyway, here's some fun ref's you all can play with, from more general to banking issue:

Well that's my fun to share for now. If have time today, I will enter actual new info on another topic with lots of refs. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sectioning

I looked around and Education and Career sections tend to be more typical for many bios than the more creative ones in this article. They are more flexible, as well. I think it's interesting that Hayek recommended him for Stanford and he hung out with Rothbard there, per one of his Mises interviews, and that could be stuck in the education section. But not tonight by me.

Also, I don't think economics should have sections unless some one topic his so overwhelmingly his focus that seems obvious and necessary. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me he is an historian re Austrian School topics, so his thoughts in this regard might come under the economics rubric. The section is just a start. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewed articles that should be mentioned?

This listing was mentioned before. I cleaned out book chapters and anything published by the company he's affiliated and got down to this. Anybody know if these are significantly "prestigious" and/or peer-reviewed journals to be mentioned in the articles list? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Huerta de Soto, J., “Conjectured History and Beyond,” Humane Studies

Review 6, no. 2 (Winter, 1998–1989): 10.

  • Huerta de Soto, J., “The Ongoing Methodenstreit of the Austrian

School,” Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines 8, no. 1 (March 1998): 75–113.

  • Huerta de Soto, J., “New Light on the Prehistory of the Theory of Banking

and the School of Salamanca,” Review of Austrian Economics 9, no. 2 (1996): 59–81.

  • Huerta de Soto, J., “A Theory of Liberal Nationalism,” Il Politico IX, no.

4 (University of Pavia, Italy, 1995): 583–98.

  • Huerta de Soto, J., “A Critical Note on Fractional-Reserve Free Banking,”

Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1, no. 4 (Winter, 1998): 25–49.

  • Huerta de Soto, J., “Interés, ciclos económicos y planes de pensiones,”

Annals of the Congreso Internacional de Fondos de Pensiones (Madrid, April 1984), pp. 458–68; reprint, Chapter 23 in J. Huerta de Soto, Estudios de economía política (Madrid: Unión Editorial, 1994), pp. 285–94.

Bibliography Bloat

The biblio section is excessive. It's approaching the length of Arnold Toynbee's. Many lines are devoted to translations or at least one to a minor note in a periodical. This should be pared to significant works in the original. I'm unfamiliar with these works, and I am not able to make the cut. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. An article like Friedrich Hayek bibliography might be good. For now, though, this listing does not deserve a separate article. Still, it also serves as a source for editors who might want to expand on the beefier (lean beef, that is) portions of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is listing every translation. Perhaps it could be stated as "Also published in" and name languages and if necessary ref each mention so it will just appear as a ref.
As you noticed above I added a bunch of articles. I figured those who state they know what are the highest quality peer review articles would be able to opine on which of the above are and those could replace lower quality ones in the article. I haven't heard since opinions yet. Perhaps I'll have to figure it out myself. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

de Soto's contributions

The AfD indicates that the community believes de Soto should stay. However, if he does stay, this article needs major cleaning up. For one, nothing here is written about de Soto's theoretical or empirical contributions to economics; since he's described as an economist rather than a political activist, I think these contributions -- rather than ideological views (about "fractional reserve banking" being "fraud" etc) that any John or Jane off the street could assert -- should be the main point of this article. Steeletrap (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My sense of Soto's "contribution" is that he's channeled Murray Rothbard for the Spanish market without having made any original contributions to economic research or theory. This would not generally be sufficient to sustain a career as an academic economist but Soto's staying power may come from other sponsorship. Aside from what could be called academic contributions, it's possible that Soto has addressed the well-publicized policy issues that relate to Spain's role in the recent economic crisis. Any such material might compensate for a lack of original work in the field. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
What you mean is additional information,not clean up. Have you looked at Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Various_sources_for_general_info_and_his_banking_theories for starters? Actually the most discussion I've found just typing his name into books.google, etc is his views on fractional reserve banking. And there are discussions of his work on fractional reserving banking linked above. He is in a middle of a debate among Austrians as to when it constitutes fraud.
Today I did see a mention that he has views in other areas, but they were not detailed. It's all about the research. Yes, it needs work to include these views, but someone has to do it. Are you willing? Otherwise have patience with volunteers. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I did my undergraduate degree in economics and statistics and my master's degree is also in a social science. I know about this stuff. Being a "social scientist" is not just about getting a PhD so you can get a job and so your political opinions on economic matters carry more weight with laypersons. It's about doing the hard work of empirical research and statistical modeling that constitute the social sciences. All this article does is detail Jesus' educational background, his employment history, his translating of Austrian School texts, his friendship with libertarians and affiliations with libertarian groups, his opinions about political matters (which could be stated by a person with no training in economics), his discussion of economic history (i.e. his interpretation of the views of the Renaissance Salamanca School) and a bloated bibliographic section which does not specify what these books/articles are about and how they relate to economics. Nothing in Jesus' article relates to the work he has done as an economist. Steeletrap (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
First, anonymous people claiming outside expertise is not only not very credible but gives the impression some editors are more equal than others. Such arguments really are uncalled for.
Second, see comment about we're all volunteers and you can always add such material yourself. Patience. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing/misinterpreting U of Chicago press-related work??

At this diff, User:SPECIFICO removed Huerta de Soto has worked as Spanish editor of the collected works of Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek (which obviously were not in the right order, but that's easily fixable), and replaced it with Huerta de Soto was administrative editor of the Spanish language edition of works by Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek SPECIFICO also writes he verified footnotes and proofread the Spanish text

"Administrative editor" and that description obviously is deprecating WP:OR since the English translation of the reference (Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial; section includes information on the Compete Works of F.A. Hayek, pp. 1-2;) reads:

[Later - put back what got accidentally truncated & improved translation: Stephen Kresge, General Editor, The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek in 22 volumes, published by The University of Chicago Press in the U.S. and Routledge in England, commissioned (Huerta de Soto) "Editor of the Spanish Edition" to all Spanish-speaking countries ...The work of the editor of the Spanish edition is to coordinate and manage the entire collection...
So first we need to clean that up and I put a WP:OR tag on it.
Also addition verification that can be added is a couple of editors of the U Chicago collection co-edited the Spanish editions with him. Will add if necessary.

CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To give the unabridged text (my humble translation) from Soto's web page:

Editor of the Spanish edition: Jesus Huerta de Soto The work of the editor of the Spanish edition is to coordinate and manage the entire collection, specifically to engage translators, proofread the text, realize the pagination of the footnotes for the Spanish text, and write forewords and prefatory notes to the volumes in the Series.[1]

_______

  1. ^ Soto, J. H. de. "Soto CV".

SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Specifically seems to have a few more things like to ensure there's "a bibliography in Spanish, and write Forewords, Introductions, Introductory Notes and/or Preliminary Studies to the volumes in the series." Now that's a lot more than just "verify footnotes and proofread".
A more accurate way to put it would be:
The editor of The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek published by the University of Chicago Press commissioned Huerta de Soto as editor of seven volumes of the Spanish language edition, published by Union Editorial in Madrid. In addition to editorial oversight, he wrote Forewords, Introductions and Introductory Notes.
Is it necessary to say "according to Huerta de Soto" here when do not do elsewhere? Would he make something like this up and stick it in his resume? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Commissioned? We are not talking about an aircraft carrier here.

It means, he was hired to do it.
Per BLP please find a WP:RS discussion of his role. Software translations are rather primitive.
Also, it's difficult to parse text that has been refactored after other editors have replied. Please review policy.
SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Assigned sounds more professional, eh, and still infers payment. But looking for better, human translation per WP:V, which is what is relevant to WP:BLP.
I think I clearly identified that I changed it, which is acceptable, and then included the change in my proposal.

There is no need to speculate about this. A secondary WP:RS is required for anything other than Soto's own opinions. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that everything in Soto's CV is merely his opinion and none of it can be used in the article, even with a perfect translation? See: Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, as well as opinions atWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Curriculum_vitae; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24 which all say a self-published source can be used if identified as such, unless there is some truly questionable self-serving claim. If this one is the one you feel must be identified in the text as being from his CV, fine, we can do that.
Verifying that editors of the English version were editors of some of his versions will help confirm this isn't some rogue translation/publication of U of C's work, though I'm sure it would be quite the scandal if it was. And we could always look at what the intro of the first book or two has to say about his relation, properly translated of course. (Though my spanish is good enough for a quick scan, with a little help from our friendly spies at google translate.)
Luckily all we old retired people have nothing better to do than fuss over these details... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Misean strain?

WTF is the "Misean strain"!? Think about the readers -- without more they will have no idea what this means? And just because LvMI publishes someone's work, does that create some vague "identification" with?? – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Plain English. Why create a red link? What would you prefer? The Mises/Rothbard tradition? The identifies with the theories of Mises and Rothbard? Identifies with the views of the Mises Institute? Nothing vague about it, it is referenced in the article and in his work. Deliberately creating a red link doesn't improve the text. Why not put brackets around other word pairs? government cabals historical facts proposed abolition etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Misean strain is fine if a WP:RS uses it. I did a search, didn't find that, and thus removed it; he reverted of course. How many WP:RS in the Austrian School article are there making such a sharp distinction? There's a spectrum of views and mixing and matching by various individuals and it's absurd to try to separate them into the "good guys" and the "bad guys" unless you have a mind that only sees dualities.
Since discussing POV is appropriate on article talk pages [added later per user's comment on my talk page: per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors) and (especially if one is banned from the subjects talk page), let me say:
SPECIFICO's POV is an alleged PhD economist of the "credible" Austrian School and he repeatedly has expressed contempt for Ludwig von Mises-related economists (as well as editors who he perceives as defending them) as at April 20 diff, April 21 diff,May 28 diff - not to mention his comments ridiculing Huerta de Soto on this talk page.
User:SPECIFICO's obsessive POV has blinded him to Wikipedia policies and somehow he's gotten away with it despite his first block for editing warring, protection of an article after complaint of his editwarring, several ANIs against him by longtime editors who he drove so crazy they edit warred and got banned (will we be next?), various other noticeboard complaints. Such a mountainous POV dissuades rational argument. It's definitively time for an WP:RfC/User and I'm sure there are still a few editors around willing to comment. Let's get some mentoring for User:SPECIFICO!
SRich: Please don't "collapse/hide" this! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, SPECIFICO, for removing the lemon. (CarolMooreDC, the fact that you don't want me to hide your comments is an indication that I have good reason to do so. In this case, however, I would not because I am an involved editor.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
A simple reflection of the WP:RS is always better than a WP:OR wording that evokes objections. (No, I won't hide your comment, SRich :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Hayek Edition.

I see the citation in the article, but I cannot find any mention of Soto, "rendering" "editing" or similar assertions there. Please provide a more specific link or quote the relevant statement on the U Chicago Press website that supports the assertion in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been fixed. FYI future readers. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Because this paragraph was entirely sourced to primary sources and included OR and SYNTH I have reduced it to a simple statement of what is in the cv. There are many unknown facts and circumstances relating to this, including the circumstances that led to the limitation of the project to only a few volumes, the extent of Soto's role, and other issues. Per BLP and other policies we will need to find a secondary RS discussion of the Spanish Hayek project in order to include more than a simple mention in the article text. If none can be found, we should consider removing this mention from the text since it merely duplicates information more suitable to the bibliography. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

His CV is the primary source, and is acceptable (used with caution). The publisher data is secondary. We can look at and supply ISBNs, which serve to verify that something was published. WorldCat (oclc) data is available as well, which lists him as a contributor to the various works. The footnote serves to show he worked on the Spanish Hayek stuff, we don't need a secondary source that elaborates on his role. I'll revise the restored paragraph to say he "worked on" these volumes and thereby downplay the implication that he was "the" editor, thus resolving any OR or SYN problem. – S. Rich (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the publisher page is an additional primary source. Please review policy and undo your edit, while resolving on talk per BRD. Please don't just try out your proposed solution. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
BRD wise, User:Specifico has repeatedly reverted the original edit and it has been in contention, so his reverting again without further disussion would be edit warring. Also books google verification of who published what is the kind of "primary source" used all the time. And more reliable than secondary sources which often get publishers and versions confused. Learn to use tags like verification needed instead of always reverting.
I'll mention which of those refs specifically list him as editor or co-editor with the other editors of the Chicago series, who also can be verified. After doing a general search for other secondary sources. There is no reason to assume he lied or is inaccurate or is not reliable in this. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP violation, and it is a serious matter. A secondary RS is required, or policy dictates the material must be removed. Editor assumptions one way or another violate BLP. This policy is the overriding test. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Soto. What he says about himself is Primary stuff, and acceptable. As his cv is published for the world to examine, we can assume it is reliable. And as it refers to himself, not to anyone else, it is useful in this article. When a publisher lists so-and-so as an author of a book that the company has published, the publisher is not writing about the person, but about the works it publishes. No BLP violation is occurring. Absolutely none. – S. Rich (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
How can it be a BLP violation to quote himself? At most it would be a WP:RS violation. Take it to WP:RSN where you will find CVs are generally acceptable, and those that are backed up with refs like list of books and the editors I just added even more so. I'm sure somewhere there's a Spanish language review mentioning all this. Why not help verify by looking for it? I know you want to keep his notable connection to the U of C in there. :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review this: [3] Personal statements are acceptable sources for opinions not facts. And editors interpretations as to what facts are supported by a primary document such as Chicago catalog listing are not RS. It's time to take a step back and conform to policy. Remember the first go-round with this had the article preposterously inferring that de Soto was the translator of Hayek's complete works. Among other things, we should find a source to determine why the Spanish edition appears to have been cancelled after only a few volumes. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WRT the diff that you posted, I am unclear on what your point is. WRT personal statements and their pertinence to opinions but not facts -- what guidance are you referring to? (Per WP:ABOUTSELF information about the person is acceptable. That seems to say: "You can give your date of birth. You can say what your opinion is (like 'I believe government should ....'")) WRT to "canceling" the series -- how (not why) do we know it was cancelled? WRT the Chicago catalog -- what evidence do we have that it is not RS? – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Could we keep discussion on this talk page? Special pleading for one's edits on involved users talk pages really is distracting to all involved. thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Do not mischaracterize my remarks or insinuate that other editors are violating WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It is distracting to have to watch editors talk pages to see if they are discussing an issue. I'm not sure if it's against policy; want me to look? And it does look to me personally as special pleading. And, of course, unless you find something about why it was cancelled, it's pretty much irrelevant. Maybe JHDS got too busy or the Spanish publishing house couldn't afford it. Or the Spanish were selling so many more copies that it was too much competition for the English publishers. I'm sure we could speculate about all sorts of dastardly reasons as well, but that would be against policy. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea please file an ANI that I posted a message to Srich, but meanwhile, no personal attacks and no mischaracterizing other editors words or actions on article talk or anywhere else. Acabado. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute. One doesn't go to ani first, one makes a public comment, like on the article talk page. Otherwise, if you have a problem with the sourcing of this, go to WP:reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing Mises and Rothbard full names/links from lead?

Considering that the mentions of Mises and Rothbard come way before they can be see way down in the info box, and many people don't read info boxes anyway, it seems a bit odd that at this diff removes both. This is an informational encyclopedia, not an email to a list filled with Austrian economists or libertarians who know who these people are. I don't want to be appear to be in an edit war, so I'd appreciate it if someone else can correct that so I don't have to ask elsewheres. Meanwhile, lets leave the "clarification" tag which was for information that ws corrected, since now we need to clarify for readers who this Mises and Rothbard are.  :-) Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is so elementary to good editing that I'll take User:SPECIFICO to WP:EWN if he reverts it. If he wants to take me for fixing it, I'm sure the reaction will be incredulous. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove two templates in "Economic views" section?

Excessive quotation template? I can't remember who put it on. Also, expansion isn't really necessary now, is it? I think it's ok to remove both. Not a perfect section, but better than was. Thanks CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proper way to mention name

I've always seen full uses of his name as Jesús Huerta de Soto. Partial uses I've seen as Huerta de Soto and de Soto. Anyone want to investigate "Reliable sources" (not our personal opinions) about that? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 16:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The article {{DEFAULTSORT}} is Huerta De Soto. Guidance on usage of Spanish surnames is not too clear. I think either usage is fine. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like someone who knows better than us did that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The propoer way to use the name is Huerta de Soto, I know because I'm Spanish and I have studied with him in class. "User:Anarcocapitalista austriaco —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Opposing economic views -- from Krugman and/or others ?

Best to omit competing views that do not address specific remarks by de Soto. Perhaps can add "See also" section or "Further" hatnote. – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't clarify that in my removal. If the argument specifically mentions Huerta de Soto, fine. I listed a couple above that do, as does an existing ref, though the latter only in passing. Just haven't had time to look for more. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I see User:SPECIFICO is edit warring again by adding material that does not mention Huerta de Soto, against policy. So it's three refs instead of one, still irrelevant. Geez, do I have to keep taking him to noticeboards )WP:BLPN this time) to get Admins to explain policy to him? (And quote his POV so they won't think he's just a confused newbie.)
On another note, finally getting around to writing a bit on Huerta de Soto's economic views and found he's had quite a bit to say about Milton Friedman we can mention. Maybe I'll find something he has to say about Krugman too. So hopefully we will have a larger and relevant section soon. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While it may seem tempting to add countering views on economic theories or subjects based on WP:BALANCE, I don't think this is the proper guideline. We have some of his views set forth so that the reader can get an idea of what de Soto thinks. If there are countering sources that specifically address his views, then adding them would have more pertinence. But adding views that do not address what de Soto said specifically, does not help the reader. Would we add the theories about stagflation and the Depression from all the various schools of thought just to show that de Soto was wrong? No. Those are debates for the specific theory subject articles. Compare: he may prefer red-wine because his family operates a winery and he extolls the health virtues of red wine, etc. We would not include material that says white wine (or beer or Johnny Walker Black) is superior. (Please note that I have retitled the section re-titled as it is not specific to Krugman.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)00:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just books.googling JHDS and Friedman I've got five pages of notes! See, one can find sources that mention de Soto's views, and not rely on those who do. Just use books google. (Haven't even looked at Scholar google....) So if I don't put something in tonight, you know why. Guess I'll go with what I got for now. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

[Cut & pasted from my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)]

Per WP:TAGGING it would be helpful if you would explain which text in the sentence "Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association" constitutes Original Research. It's all stated in the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the discussion topic on the talk page and commented. Adding the two ideas -- Friedman's and de Soto's views -- is WP:SYN. de Soto is reported to have said "only the Austrians predicted stagflation/GD." (The "A".) You want to add "Friedman predicted stagflation/GD." (The "B".) The new position ("C") -- that de Soto was wrong about being the only ones correct about stagflation/GD is: "A and B, therefore C" [and] acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. So, not only do we have an unacceptable "C", it is off-topic because the topic of the article is the biography of de Soto, and not the various economic theories (or history of economic theories) that he has written about. It does not matter if there is RS for A or B. The C is the unacceptable part. (And the B is off-topic because it is not about de Soto.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Did you intend the tag to be "OR" or something else? Anyway, I didn't state what you're calling the synth C. Just giving context on a matter of history and theory from mainstream source. The statement "only Austrians predicted X" is also not about Soto. I am not seeing any OR here? SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
1. Which tag do you think is pertinent? 2. The "C" is implicit, e.g., that de Soto was wrong. So it is unacceptable. 3. The italicized statement above is policy. 4. Milton, in 1967, clearly was not addressing what de Soto was going to say 44 years in the future. 5. So, if you want to say de Soto was wrong because he does not reference what Milton had said 44 years earlier, you must find RS (not your own interpretation) to support that position. – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to identify the OR. Please do so or remove the tag. Another editor tagged "failed verification" which is false, but irrelevant to the current issue. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR Best and I should have used myself. It reads: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. And WP:BLP refers to WP:OR frequently. Frankly, I only skimmed enough to see it wasn't about JHDS, so can't say if it's synthesis; I just looked at ref links and saw no mention of JHDS. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So I've now tagged the material as {{syn}}. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no SYNTH there. Poor Soto -- he's being protected from fresh air like a sickly old asthmatic. Soto is strong! He stands tall! He is and able to live and breathe in a sentence next to the immortal Milton Friedman. Here's to both of them. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
[Insert]: FYI, please see: BLP on talk pages and WP:Civil. Mocking the subject of an article because you disagree with editor's comments on policy is just not the way to collaborate and can make people angry and frustrated. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is Milton cited? – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Look at here: Flat Earth Society. "The myth that the earth was flat..." Now, should we say "Soto gave voice to the myth that the Austrians were the only ones to predict the staglation..." Decisions, decisions! SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
First, even for an academic paper it's a false argument since the source says that BOTH 1929 and stagflation predicted and you give only one. But in Wikipedia terms it is argumentative WP:OR (rereading sentence I hit it on nail first time around).
Synthesis is a subsection of OR, so almost as good.
SPECIFICO: What part of "directly related" do you not understand? By the way, here's books google on JHDS and Fractional reserve banking. You can find various commentary there about Huerta de Soto and the topic if you want to work on this in Wikipedia terms not in "I'm a competing academic out to ridicule and destroy this fool" terms.
Do we really have to get other voices in here to explain that simple point to you? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Charles K. Johnson's article does not have a section explaining that he was right or wrong or giving alternative or supporting or opposing views. That is the difference. Adding Milton is SYN. Pure and simple. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
That's cause it's a stub article without a single valid source. Think first, type second, my motto. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
{Insert}: You've been keeping us pretty busy dealing with policy issues on your changes on a number of articles, so forgive us if we're a bit behind on adding some well sourced commentary here. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the issue is SYN. If Johnson's article (whether or not a stub) had a refutation of flat earth nonsense, it would be inappropriate because his article is a biography and not a debate or explanation about flat earthness. It looks like you want to say "de Soto was wrong because Milton said this...." Well, the parallel you draw is "Johnson is wrong." And I can prove it "because Milton said this...." – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Added comment -- please note that my comment was made before certain changes were inserted immediately above. I am addressing SPECIFICO, and no other editor in this remark.05:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

good explanation... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This diff is rather amusing because here we have a source comparing Friedman and Huerta de Soto's distaste (and even the latter's scorn) of a viewpoint and SPECIFICO removes it. Sounds POV to me. I have another even more solid comparison; might find more. Maybe they just need their own paragraph? Probably not worth the effort, but will keep in mind. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Remarks about remarks

And note that you demanded I make them. Which I've removed. Now why don't you ask User:Specifico to remove his ridiculing remarks about Huerta de Soto? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
[[File:|25px|link=]] – S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility has suggestions for uncivil attacks on other editors or the subject of an article. I mean they do just heat up the temperature - and often lead to less than civil responses to the incivility that just escalate. ("Strive to become the editor who can't be baited.") However, it is appropriate to point these out on the talk page in a civil manner. So I shall try again. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard link

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jesus_Huerta_de_Soto_WP:OR.2FSynth Since SPECIFICO does not seem interested in a serious discussion of the issue. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 18:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given no response on the WP:OR policy issue, also brought to WP:ORN. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Since the topic may be too abstruse or boring for many editors put link to WP:ORN at Wikiproject economics. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 01:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Heurta de Sotos views elaborated

I actually searched for a better source for his views and have included his actual views from primary source, which is his 2008 talk at London's Institute of Economic Affairs published later by Economic Affairs. (Sneak a peak here.) Did low quality secondary source writing "only" regarding 1970s staglation as well as 1929 get it wrong? Probably. Certainly his own talks/writings a better source. Anyway, it makes the WP:OR/Synth of adding Friedman just look even more silly. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • At this diff User:SPECIFICO reverted my change because I removed the "only" mentioned in the Russian source. Fine, we can say that at the Russian event he said was reported to say blah blah and in his writings he wrote blah blah. We use primary sources to make views clear, especially when a secondary source may have gotten it wrong - because we do not want to misrepresent the views of a living person in order to make them look dumb or whatever. Hopefully I won't have to add that to the request for opinions at WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 02:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Skousen views corrected

At this diff the correction. First, Skousen might actually be relevant a) because Huerta de Soto helped him with the first edition and is in the acknowledgements and b) because HDS in his 2004 article in Journal for the New Europe, 2004, Jesús Huerta de Soto refs Skousen writing: 21. See Mark Skousen, "Who Predicted the 1929 Crash?", included in The Meaning of Ludwig von Mises, Jeffrey M. Herbener (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 247-284. Lionel Robbins, in his "Introduction" to the first edition of F.A. Hayek's Prices and Production (Routledge, London, 1931, p. xii), also referred to this prediction made by Mises and Hayek of the inexorable advent of the Great Depression, which had appeared expressly in an article by Hayek which was published in 1929 in Monatsberichte des Österreichischen Instituts für Konjunk turforschung.

Of course, the whole section is an out of order mess right now. (Not to mention removal of irrelevant and argumentative Friedman comment which two editors oppose. Imagine if we went through all of Friedman explaining how Keynes and Marx had different opinions on this, that or the other, neither of whom obviously mentioned Friedman. Silliness.) Will work on later. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

At this diff User:Specifico removed the sourced material that supported Huerta de Soto's contention that both Hayek and Mises predicted 1929 writing: (Delete WP:SYNTH juxtaposing unrelated statements in cited source) Don't worry, when I fix the order it will all become clear. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Duh, I forgot, this is just more argumentative synth so added it to: WP:ORN notice. Hey, but if I'm wrong, we can have a lot of fun with friedman and krugman and all those non-Austrian economists correcting everything they say quoting Hayek arguments, can't we. :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

More WP:OR using Skousen

Specifico put in at this diff more material not about Huerta de Soto: Skousen quotes Austrian economist Fritz Machlup as saying that Mises had been prophesying the failure of Kreditanstalt nearly every Wednesday afternoon since 1924. I know he'd just revert it if I removed it so I'll give someone else the honor. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 01:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The association of these statements is from Skousen, on the cited page of the referenced source. When it comes to Mises' predictions, Fritz was there Jesus was not. Skousen connects the dots for us in his RS book pp 290, 296. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The dots should be connected in another article, they are WP:OR here. And yet you remove here relevant info about Soto and Selgin and White. But I have more. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Stated another way, Skousen is writing about whether Mises made a "prediction" and cites the Machlup quote in his (Skousen's) appraisal of the question. OR would be if an editor made the inference, but it is Skousen, the author of the cited source reference. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Barry-related WP:OR/Synth

At this diff] I finally got around to remove Skousen WP:OR above, plus the even more irrelevant statement appended to the quote from two academics about Huerta de Soto's writing on the School of Salamanca (per "Quote from two nobodies" section below).

British political phiosopher Norman Barry wrote about the writings of British economist, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson MBE, calling her scholarship on the origins of liberalism in Spain unsurpassed. Hutchinson completed her PhD dissertation at the London School of Economics under Friedrich Hayek. Barry calls Grice-Hutchinson's work masterful, despite the fact that she was not famous.

I feel like User:SPECIFICO is just trying to aggravate other editors here. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 23:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not make personal remarks on the article talk page and WP:AGF on any page. Consider the following [4] See how CNN's rejection of birtherism is juxtaposed with Dobb's false promotion of birtherism? Now, why should Soto's false statements about the exclusive predictive powers of Austrian economists not be juxtaposed with the simple fact that his statements are false and the overwhelming majority of informed observers know Soto's statements to be false? Just like Lou Dobbs. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for sharing my feelings. Will strike them out.
Everyone of those sources mentions Dobbs. Use of sources that mention Huerta de Soto is fine. And Barry isn't even a response, just saying someone else is good. Shall we go Paul Krugman and add that Hayek also got a Nobel Prize? Irrelevant. Please study WP:OR carefully. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
No. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote from two nobodies

Excuse me folks. I stated a valid reason for us to trim that vacuous quote from nobody in particular. You are both edit warring to reinsert without addressing my clearly articulated concern on talk before restoring the text. Frankly it makes Soto look foolish if we cannot find a more credible or better known expert to attest to Soto's stature. Which of you honorable editors will remove the text while we discuss? I'm have an idea, but I won't say which one I guess will do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have found several quotes from US Austrian economists but I knew you'd remove them because you remove anyone in the least related to or talking to anyone related to Mises as NOT being a reliable source or some other questionable excuse. (Unless it's Gary North who you obviously like to use.) I have them written down somewhere. If someone else encourages me to find them I'll put them in. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a personal attack and I advise you to strike through it or you may next encounter it at an ANI on your increasingly hostile harassment and incivility to other editors. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Geez! [[File:|25px|link=]]. Not PA. Not uncivil, but most certainly not a helpful article improvement comment. The two of you ought to WP:IBAN! – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If this book is to be cited we need a reason as to why the opinion of a graduate student and an unknown academic are worthy of mention in the article. If a recognized or notable or expert or influential person had made the statement, that would clearly be worthy of inclusion. There are billions of people in the world, and millions of authors and we don't just quote whichever one is handy. This article needs more significant figures evaluations of de Soto. The mention of this book should be removed. It gives the impression, to HdeS' detriment, that no more suitable references can be found. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this diff this book is written by academics and published by an academic publisher. If you don't like it, go to WP:RSN and see if you can find anyone who agrees with you. Or you can edit war and revert and I'll go there. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
A graduate student is not "an academic" and neither the publisher nor the other author are distinguished in any way. A declaration made by two otherwise undistinguished individuals as to their opinion of de Soto is not a notable or authoritative statement about him. Before such an opinion is included in the article, its importance and wider significance must be established. If you favor citing the opinions of these two individuals, please demonstrate their importance and expertise. What if they had written that Reggie Jackson was the greatest ever to wear the Yankee pinstripes, would you include that in Reggie's article merely because some obscure publisher printed it? SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_book_for_statement_about_author. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Undue on Larry J. Sechrest criticism

First, the fractional reserve section needs a neutral description of his views. I was lazy and put in that plus Searchrest's analysis in a short version, figuring people can go to the easily available article to read the long version. But User:SPECIFICO, given his uncontrollable POV against all the "Bad Guy" Austrian economists, goes all overboard to quote the nastiest comments he can find ad nauseum to the point of WP:Undue.

The solution is to find a more neutral description of his views and then do a separate shorter mention just of Sechrest's criticisms. Thus another tag til we fix the problem. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Specifico just took all that WP:Undue quoting of material that is easily available at the link and stuck it in a footnote. So tagged it again. Have to stay eagle eyed. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 01:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edit summary states that the quote now in the footnote (to provide verification of the article text) was itself previously recited within the text of the article and moved into a footnote in response to your talk comment. In fact, however, the quote now in the footnote was not incorporated in the article text and was added to provide verification and context when I shortened the section. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. The point is people easily can read the whole article. You have deleted all sorts of relevant factoids that of a neutral or positive fashion, but you want to add all sorts of negative info. Please see Wikipedia:BLP#Balance:
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.
The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
It would be appropriate to remove it under WP:BLP given that it is excess criticism, from a source so easily connected to on line, and I doubt any complaint would fly at the appropriate noticeboard. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to see how an article can be improved by deletion of a quote in a footnote when that quote serves to verify the text in the article. It's a complex subject, Sechrest spins his reasoning at some lenght, and per the initial tagging an extended quote is rather long for the article but ideal in the explanatory footnote. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If it's that complex, people can read the whole article. We give them a taste, not the whole salami. Plus, I don't see how in your opinion Sechrest is any higher on the academic food chain than the two "nobodies" you assail below. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of another sourced description of book

At this diff User:Specifico removed this information leaving an edit summary failing to mention he did so:

In it he outlines the history of finance and banking in a manner nonspecialists can comprehend, presents moral and economic critiques of the current systems and presents an alternative to Western financial systems.REF:Review of Jesus Huerta de Soto's Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, The Journal of Markets & Morality: Scholarship for a Humane Economy, Volume 10, Issue 1, Acton Institute, 2007, p 186.

This of course leaves only his unbalanced and massive section from Sechrest. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just added this as new section of Huerta de Soto running BLPN notice:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:Undue_criticism_issue_vs._Wikipedia:BLP.23Balance. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Economist or economic pundit?

I'm very skeptical of the former characterization. It depends I guess on how we define "economist." If we mean someone who holds a position teaching economics at an accredited university and/or someone who has a graduate degree in economics, Jesus clearly fits the bill. But if we mean someone who contributes to substantive (i.e. scientifically respectable, replicable, empirical, and peer-reviewed) economic research, Jesus is no more an economist than the Hon. Doc Ron Paul.

Jesus strikes me as a man with virtually no interest in or experience with academic economics. Jesus's aim seems to be using his credential as a professor to buttress his political opinions in favor of "full reserve banking", the gold standard, Ron Paul for President, and the like; that stuff, and not academic economists, seems to be what he really cares about. Jesus's ostensible credential as an "economist" is simply a useful tool to make his political opinions on the economy appear less extreme/preposterous/erroneous than they otherwise would. Steeletrap (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Two concerns. 1. "Mere" suggests POV. 2. With this in mind, the section heading should say "Economist or economic pundit?". Please change. – S. Rich (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow your reasoning, but I'm happy to change this. Let's now please get back on the important subject raised above. Steeletrap (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Steeletrap has repeatedly ridiculed economists s/he identifies as "Miseans" (see this diff) and at this diff described editors who disagree with his/her (biased) edits as akin to "Scientologists". So I have to doubt the neutrality and credibility of the editor's opinions on this topic. Brought up per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Your denigration of Scientology is gratuitous and offensive. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I merely linked to a biased editor's quote about them which in context was pejorative. Please try not to get confused. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Takes no effort. Confusion comes naturally to me. Thanks for your concern. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The concern that Steeletrap raises in terms of article improvement is legitimate. To reframe the question, in editing this article is it proper to classify de Soto as an economist, scholar, writer, pundit, or what? I don't think WP has a category of or for pundts. So, as de Soto has a professorship in economics I think we must leave him classified as an economist. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify WP rules for Carol: having opinions on subjects doesn't constitute "bias" in the relevant sense; you have to let those opinions motivate you to make edits that deviate from WP standard. She says I did the latter, but all of her formal charges alleging this have been spurned by "neutral" editors uninvolved in these libertarian squabbles.

In terms of Jesus, citing some of his actual (empirical/sceitnfiic) contributions to economics, as opposed to citing eccentric economic opinions that the guy at Tony's pub could tell me, would go a long way to alleviating my concerns. Steeletrap (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto where nine editors called for keeping the article and none of them challenged idea he's an economist. Left question at relevant wikiproject to get outside opinions. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The question of whether to label Jesus an economist was not under consideration there. Please try not to get confused. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
What is proposed here? Removing an reference to being an economist? Removing economist info box? Given that User:SPECIFICO just removed Murray Rothbard' info box, which I had to revert, I have to assume this implies some drastic change. If it's just opinionated Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox for advocacy, opinion, advertising, self-promotion, etc. It's just disruptive editing if there is not some specific proposal attached. Not to mention it seems more meant to annoy and distract other editors than improve the project. See WP:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote on Murray Rothbard article in reaction to Steeletrap/Specifico's desire to remove info box that he's an economist:
I don't think others share your unique and exclusionary viewpoint. See Economist: An economist is a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. I also do not see any such exclusionary language in Template:Infobox_economist.
Enough for me for now. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The test is WP policy, not article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to any policy. Just looks like WP:IDONTLIKE SOME AUSTRIAN ECONOMISTS :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 23:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Seek and ye shall find. GLTU. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Friedman section not synthesis

Making a factual assertion -- i.e. stating that Friedman predicted the stagflation of the 1970s -- without explicitly drawing an inference related to Soto's reasoning is not synthesis or original research. I certainly agree that the fact that Friedman said this implies that Soto's assertion was erroneous, but as long as this isn't explicitly stated in the text, it isn't synthesis. This is a simple matter of logic. Asserting proposition A and proposition B, so long as each proposition is well-sourced by RS, isn't synthesis even if B may imply A is false; it only becomes synthesis if the connection B--> ~A (or in this case, that Friedman's statement means Soto was wrong) is explicitly drawn. Steeletrap (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Implicit conclusions are explicitly prohibited. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In this case we have de Soto saying A (the Austrians predicted XYZ) and Friedman saying B (I predict XYZ). We cannot imply the conclusion C ("de Soto was wrong" or "Friedman says de Soto was wrong" or even "according to Friedman, de Soto was wrong"). We need someone (RS) explicitly saying "C". – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There's been some further recent discussion about this on the OR Noticeboard. [5] SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The ORN, like many NBs, is hopelessly confused and convoluted. (I've tagged it as {{Stuck}}.) I strongly urge that this question be resolved here. As I read the above, Steele says implicit is okay, but guidance says no. Friedman's statement might mean that de Soto was wrong, but Friedman himself does not say de Soto is wrong. We need RS to say this, and not base de Soto's wrongness based on our own conclusions. Where am I wrong in my analysis? – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the 2 uninvolved editors on ORN agree that it's OK to leave the text as is. Those 2 plus the three here makes 5, not that it's a vote. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking for analysis, not a count. (And who is the third here?) – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
LK is the third on here. I thought you had read the noticeboard thread. have a look. I don't want to misrepresent what's there. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
LK ain't here. Is he one of the 2 uninvolved on the ORN? (I haven't tallied there.) Still, analysis here, to tell me where and how I am wrong, is what I'm looking for. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Rich, I'm confused: where does it say in the piece that Soto was wrong? If it did, I'd agree with you that it's synthesis. But as it stands, there are merely two facts listed in the section. One of these (that Friedman talked about stagflation) may imply that the other (Soto's statement about Austrians being the only ones to predict the 1980s crisis) is false. But as long as that implication isn't specifically stated, I don't see how stating two RS-documented facts, bereft of commentary, constitutes a violation of the policy you quote above. Steeletrap (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The editing question for us is, Why do we have this sentence? – "Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association." MF said this when de Soto was 11 years old. Another editing question is, "Is this article about de Soto, or about 1970s stagflation and who/what schools did/did not predict the stagflation?" Consider, should we add info about Mercantilism? After all, it is an economics subject, based upon RS, has got lots of facts in it. The MF prediction is off-topic from the subject of the article: de Soto's BLP. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


Srich old friend, I didn't make it up... LK [6] was the one who prompted carolmooredc's journey around the noticeboards on this question. There's now a clear consensus for inclusion, even if we still count carolmooredc who has said she is no longer on board for BLPs or Austrians. It boils to you one one side and the rest of the editors involved and uninvolved, on the other. At this point, it feels like a dead horse to me. Let's get Friedman wrapped up and move on to other things? SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have asked User talk:Lawrencekhoo to opine. (I did not recall that he made the particular edit.) In any event, I have not seen anything that refutes my analysis of the SYN involved. – S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
My edit pointed to is a revert of Carol's revert of the inclusion of Friedman's (widely known) prediction of inflation in the early 70s. My thinking is that WP:ONEWAY applies here. i.e. It's not encyclopedic for an article to quote a self-serving statement that a small minority group is the only one that predicted X, when it's well known in the field that other (rather famous) people also made the same prediction, with better theoretical justification. I'm not wedded to the current wording, but some context should be given in the article. We don't quote the claims of fringe groups without also giving the opinion of the mainstream about such claims. LK (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
While I thank LK for his response, we still have the problem that Friedman was not refuting what de Soto himself said. In fact, because Friedman was predicting the same thing that de Soto was, Friedman actually supports/complements the same idea that the Austrians had about stagflation. In this regard, ONEWAY does not apply. Moreover, ONEWAY is directed more toward various theories and schools of thought, not BLPs. As for better theoretical justification, that is a subject that can be elaborated in the articles about theory, not in a BLP. Moreover, the article is about one person, not a group. With these thoughts in mind, I propose we do this: omit the stuff about the Austrians being the only ones to make certain predictions. (I don't think its' there now, but I'm not about to check at this late hour.) By doing so we don't have to include synthesized material that counters the assertion. (Again, if there is RS from someone who says "de Soto was wrong when he said suchandsuch" we can include that as a balancing statement. But by leaving out the "only ones to predict" stuff, we don't have to come up with SYN countering statements.) As this is the only real way to make the section encyclopedic, without SYN, omitting the material is to leave the prediction stuff ("only" or not) out. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)05:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Suppose that the chief research officer for a large medical institute in India, famously and repeatedly makes the statement: "Our institute is the only one that has developed a 100% effective cure for Dengue fever. No other medical professionals can treat this fearsome disease." Should this statement be included in his BLP, without also noting that the larger medical profession disagrees about the efficacy of their cure, and that there is a known standard treatment for Dengue fever? I hope it's clear that the answer is to include the standard view of the medical profession for context. LK (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a WP:V analysis will work. The Dengue fever guy is making a claim about his institution that cannot be verified, therefore we keep it out of articles which discuss him, his institution, or DF. Since de Soto's claim is about the Austrians being the only ones making certain predictions, we leave it out – for failure of V. We do not have to add a countering arguments. In any event, this stuff about economic predictions is problematic. All kinds of people/economists make predictions. (Anyone who invests in the stock market makes a prediction in their own mind that certain companies or sectors will prosper. And shorts predict that certain companies/sectors will go down.) It is more accurate to say "economists try to predict". We don't have to present these predictions (and counter-predictions) to make the articles encyclopedic. Back to your analogy -- if there is RS which directly refutes what the DF guy says, then we can add it. And compare -- what if the DF guy says "we are developing a treatment for DF which we predict will wipe out the disease." Well, we gotta wait for the clinical studies to verify/not-verify the prediction. (Another analogy: Salk & Sabin developed polio vaccines. They may have predicted that the vaccines would wipe out polio. (And so we add this statement to their articles.) Would it be proper to cite someone from 30 years earlier who said "I predict that polio will be/won't be wiped out/not wiped out in the next 10/20/100 years." No. The reason is SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What's significant and worthy of inclusion in an article describing Soto and his thought and activities is the fact that he's made this statement in several prominent venues including ones, such as the LSE address that he knew would be published and disseminated far and wide. The statement itself is also remarkable in that most economists of any stripe would be very careful when using the word "predict" in all but a technical statistical sense, in which case the properties of the prediction are clearly stated. But even among economists, who generally do not traffic in "predictions" in the sense of de Soto, what is more remarkable is that Austrian school economists disdain and even ridicule the practice of economic prediction. At any rate, the discussion comes down to a solid consensus in favor of inclusion at this point, so I think it's appropriate to reinsert the full text and move on to the next improvement here. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There isn't any "solid" consensus about including the MF material. My analysis as to SYN has not been refuted. What seems to be occurring is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument because economists in general don't like the idea of economic prediction. But even that statement lacks WP:RS. Also, what about the fact that Milton made the prediction? (More or less, as I read it.) Is it okay to disparage de Soto's prediction when Friedman made the "same" prediction (20 years earlier)? Since de Soto made the address to the LSE, didn't scholars comment on the prediction? If his prediction were that significant or weak, wouldn't scholars comment on (or "ridicule") de Soto's prediction? Or is there RS that refutes his statement that the Austrians were the only ones to make such predictions? Such post-prediction commentary would be appropriate in this BLP. But seeking to refute de Soto's economic ideas in general is not proper. Those refutations belong in the subject articles. – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please undo your deletion of the MF from the article text. Everybody has heard you, including those on the ORN board. Your view is clear, but so is the consensus. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the whole thing should be left out. I don't think it's relevant enough to his BLP to be included. LK (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Predictions

Srich, there's been a discussion underway here for more than a month on this. There's at least one thread on ORN and, I forget where else, was it BLP. Only you and the departed carolmooredc have opposed this. Many editors, including uninvolved editors at ORN have favored leaving the Friedman bit in place. An RfC here, like the ones at Rothbard and Hoppe, feels like beating a dead horse. Please consider just moving on at this point. Thanks. The most valuable way to improve the article at this juncture is to find secondary RS discussion of de Soto, not to snuff out context-providing undisputed facts to balance the excessive primary and walled-garden sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion here was started 8 July, I believe after the Friedman material was added. (The ORN/BLPs went off-track and did not resolve anything.)
Still, in the spirit of compromise, I would not object if the line about MF was removed and a {{Further2|[[1973–75 recession]]|[[Wall Street Crash of 1929]]|[[OTHER TOPIC3]] and other text}} hatnote was placed at the top of the section. – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC) PS: Nobody has told me how or why I am incorrect in my analysis.23:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review the Noticeboard discussions including salient comments from uninvolved editors. There's nothing further to discuss that hasn't already been aired and the consensus does not share your view. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

New BLPN finally gets attention

This August 1, 2013 BLPN finally brought some editors to the issue who agreed that the material was WP:OR and one removed it. Can we stop adding such argumentative material? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 17:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Hulsman correct? Did he write that?

Seeing the edit summary "Removing fringe source (from coworker) for controversial claim per WP:NPOV; WP:FRINGE; and WP:BLP)" I figured, same old biased edit. Looking at it [clarification later: it being the assertion that Hulsman said "the first Misesian treatise on money and banking to appear since the publication of Mises' original work 88 years ago"] more now, I think that if there first had been a tag like "verification and needed" and a question like, "Is Hulsman correct when he says this?" Or "what is the name of the article and how come I can't find a copy on the internet to verify he actually said this?" I might take it more seriously. But frankly I don't have the energy to track it down myself. User:Carolmooredc 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Is Hulsman correct when he says this?" is not what we mean by verification in Wikipedia. Please review the policy. I would hope that no editor would insert text in an article without knowing what's in the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Verification is the tag to verify he said it and make the context and other clarifications clear. If he did, and anyone says, "Well what about what so and so wrote such and such" then there can be discussion. User:Carolmooredc
I'm stunned with all your declarations of your seniority wisdom and experience as a WP editor that you do not appear to understand WP:VERIFY. Please review it thoroughly. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When we see in the RS that Hulsman wrote or said something, we are satisfying the WP:V requirement. "Is Hulsmann correct..." is a different type of question. That is, is Hulsman correct about this being the first book in 88 years to have been written on the subject? That sort of factual assertion, e.g., the truth of the assertion, is subject to a different sort of "factual verification". If another source said something different, factually, then we'd have to weigh the quality of the source. But each source, if we were able to access it, would be verified in the technical, WP sense. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich: Not sure if you are saying what I am. Verify means we theoretically can go to the source and check it out. Given that many quotes in many articles have been misrepresented, presented out of context, etc., and given that these sorts of articles usually are online, it seems like something that should be checked out and that the people challenging them might want to do that. User:Carolmooredc 02:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
@carolmooredc Actually, per WP policy, specifically WP:BURDEN, it is you, carolmooredc who, having inserted the text in dispute, must demonstrate that it is verified by the source you cite. And I fear you still have not read the policy because the truth of Hulsmann's assertion is not what's meant by verify in this context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
Whoever adds the quotations, journal title, volume, issue, and page number is meeting the burden. If the assertion had been paraphrased, then that's when AGF comes in. BURDEN works both ways -- addition and removal of material. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If she adds a full citation, then her burden has been met completely. There is nothing wrong with another editor wanting to verify a source, and it is in the spirit of good collaboration if the original editor can assist in this process, such as by providing an electronic copy of an article. But this sort of bickering here is not in the spirit of good collaboration. If you all stopped sniping at each other and started working together, one of you might have noticed that this article is online and can be verified by anyone. Now I notice that this journal is a publication of the Mises Institute, so we have a Mises author praising another Mises author in a Mises publication. That certainly is a point worth discussing regarding the appropriateness of this quote. So let's discuss that instead of wasting our time with accusations about verification and nonsense about Hulsman's article being deleted. Edit: Looks like all the quotes in this section are from Misenians (is that a word?) Maybe we can get some outside opinions into this section? Gamaliel (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not add that and once I read it for content (as opposed to responding to the questionable edit summary), I was skeptical of the claim. I'm actually was asking for whoever put it in to verify it since I could not find the article. Thanks to User:Gamaliel for finding it.
The relevant context reads: Few authors have consistently developed, explained, and applied Mises’s approach. Most important among these are Murray Rothbard and Hans Sennholz, who in numerous books and pamphlets...(outline the achievements)... Yet, neither Rothbard nor Sennholz wrote a treatise on money that is comparable to the one written by Mises, which first appeared in 1912. The significance of Jesús Huerta de Soto’s new 681-page book, Dinero, crédito bancario y ciclos económicos (Money, bank credit, and business cycles) is precisely that it is the first Misesian treatise on money and banking to appear since publication of Mises’s original work eighty-eight years ago.
OK, now we understand what he actually is saying; not that it was the only thing written but that it was the best thing written, in his opinion.
I think all we need is a better summary of the statement and it will of interest to readers. User:Carolmooredc 11:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hulsmann said that Soto's book was the first in 88 years. That means it was the only one in 88 years. From there, one could make a number of other deductions which while correct were not intended by Hulsmann, including it was the best, it was the worst, it was the longest, the shortest, etc. The question is whether this citation is RS for what is stated, given the author, the publisher, and the relationships of each to de Soto. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I put in one option. Those who think the quote belongs in should help get this right, here or in editing. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

False edit summary assertion on "donuts"

Huerta de Soto lives in Spain. I doubt American Yeager does. Feel free to source your assertion they have donuts in the morning. Otherwise it is a false statement in an edit summary as an excuse to remove WP:RS material and very serious, especially in an article that is part of community sanctions. I will add more reception material besides two now there. CM-DC surprisedtalk 16:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

vMI is in American South. Donuts, Doughnuts, Beignets, and Crullers are the breakfast of champions in Auburn Alabama. It's like Americans in Paris munching a croissant. Lighten up, Mlle. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Carolmooredc, did you really take literally my statement that I know what Soto has for breakfast? Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
You are making the false assertion they are so close of buddies they have breakfast every morning in order to undermine a perfectly legitimate ref. CM-DC surprisedtalk 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm making a joke. Steeletrap (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
edit conflict: It's all in the intentions, isn't it? I think this whole issue of defining what is a colleague and what is such a close connection it needs constant mentioning needs to be discussed in neutral forum, if you intend to put it in a section header. CM-DC surprisedtalk 19:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: Just make darn sure you never add a Food section to the article about the Institute Fellows sharing a snack at vMI events. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN

RE: Jean-Claude Trichet quote. see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Book_cover_quote. The arguments from the regular deleters are too predictable so might as well get an outside opinion. CM-DC surprisedtalk 18:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Honorary Degrees

Are these noteworthy events or academic honors? There are tens of thousands of institutions that grant these academic trinkets every year. Do they matter? Are they noteworthy? Can we use these primary source citations for honorary degrees from these institutions? In what way are such awards significant and worth mention in an encyclopedia? Do we see them mentioned in conventional encyclopedia articles about de Soto? SPECIFICO talk 04:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, look at the Johan Galtung article;) I often see honorary degrees mentioned in articles and include them myself when natural, for instance the four honorary degreees of Carl-Henrik Heldin, an article I started. Then I took the info from his CV. Academics are often not very well covered in easily accessable reliable sources. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that most academics' biographies are not recounted in secondary sources, let alone RS, but that begs the question as to whether these recognitions from nowhere in particular merit inclusion. I would think not. On WP we tend to think that if no independent RS paid it any attention, then it's not worth WP users' attention. SPECIFICO talk 05:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the standard is "On WP we tend to think that if no independent RS paid it any attention, then it's not worth WP users' attention." If so, we should be sure to get rid of the unsourced or equally sourced honorary mentions in Robert Barro, all of those for Milton Friedman (totally unsourced), Václav Klaus (his much better sourced extra-marital affairs would stay, of course, under that theory), Allan H. Meltzer (AEI press release??), Anna_Schwartz#Honorary_degrees (no sources, could all be fake). In fact, we could get rid of most of the info in half of the articles under Category:Chicago School economists right now because of lack of references. Certainly anything unreferenced that has an extraordinary claims of notability should go. Who knows what vandals have been up to what, after all. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from Specifico but to mention Heldin again: He is a member of several learned societies and has received several awards. I couldn't by simple googling find any truly independent sources for that, but that does hardly make it irrelevant for Wikipedia, as for instance being member of just one of these learned society would make him notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:Academic. Honorary degrees may be a less clear-cut case as such degrees don't by itself make a person notable, but it's pretty common to include such degrees (often in the Awards and recognition section), and I don't think we should put all that importance on whether some newspaper have happened to mention the doctorate or not; that's often pretty random. I believe these doctorates will often be mentioned in some kind of professional journals but they are often not accessible through googling. I guess your underlying concern here is Huerta's notability. Iselilja (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It is fairly standard to mention them in biographies. TFD (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Iselilja's listing in a separate section makes for easy reference and is user-friendly. I have no concern about including them in that format. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why tagged as non-notable?

This article has equivalents in 18 other languages. That alone does not make it notable, but it's a bit of a supporter. Tátótát (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page and any archives you'll get an idea of what's going on. This article was AfD'd here in June by Steeletrap and kept and more info added. Now User:SPECIFICO has removed reliably sourced info after tagging it as non-notable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: I am also working through RSN to deal with problematic removal of material showing notability. I also have found several items regarding notability had filed (plus more on further research) which will now render into Wikiformat in a day or two. If they too are removed on dubious grounds, WP:BLPN will be next step. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek Spanish Edition revisted

The Editor of the Spanish edition was discussed on the talk page previously here and here. After discussion the version which remained for a couple months was:

Huerta de Soto was an editor of the Spanish language edition of works by Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, working with the editors of the University of Chicago Press's Collected Works of F.A. Hayek. Seven such volumes were published between 1995 and 2001.[1][2]

This was truncated to remove the notability factors sometime after that and of course the "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" tag later inserted. As it happens, at WP:RSN User:Itsmejudith wrote "It seems to me that editing the Spanish translation of Hayek does meet the notability requirement for an economist, so that needs to go into the lead. The source can be the Hayek books themselves."

The current refs support the earlier versions:

  • Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see "Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial" reads: Stephen Kresge, General Editor, The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek in 22 volumes, published by The University of Chicago Press in the U.S. and Routledge in England, commissioned (Huerta de Soto) "Editor of the Spanish Edition" to all Spanish-speaking countries .
  • It was necessary to list all seven books because SPECIFICO refused to accept the above from Huerta de Soto's CV. However, perhaps all that is needed is one more more links to the editorial pages of English version books, such as this one that clearly states: Editor of the Spanish Edition: Jesus Huerta de Soto and then a listing of the books google links either without the details of the editors of the English language edition or specifying that that is their role. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
At this diff I added it writing: add new impeccable ref on "Editor of the Spanish Edition"; link/ref to whole series; and better organize other refs). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial; section includes information on the Compete Works of F.A. Hayek, pp. 1-2; New Library of Liberty, pp. 3-4; Journal of Market Processes, pp. 4-5.
  2. ^ Jesús Huerta de Soto edited these volumes of the series F.A. Hayek, Obras Completas (in Spanish), all published by Unión Editorial, Madrid: La Tendencia del Pensamiento Económico: Ensayos, editor with William Warren Bartley, Stephen Kresge, 1995; Las Vicisitudes del Liberalismo: Ensayos sobre Economía Austriaca y el Ideal de la Libertad, editor with Peter G. Klein, 1996; Contra Keynes y Cambridge: Ensayos, Correspondencia, editor with Bruce Caldwell, 1996; Hayek sobre Hayek: Un Diálogo Autobiográfico, La Fatal Arrogancia: Los Errores del Socialismo, editor with Stephen Kresge, Leif Wenar, 1997; Socialismo y Guerra: Ensayos, Documentos y Reseñas, editor with Bruce Caldwell, 1998; Ensayos de Teoría Monetaria (two volumes in 2000, with Stephen Kresge and José Antonio de Aguirre and 2001. For more details see Jesús Huerta de Soto website, Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial, A. Compete Works of F.A. Hayek, pp. 1-2.

Removal of incestuous shoulder-patting/LvMI-related sources.

The key to BRD is the D, not the R, Carol. This edit is not very productive. The material removed really ought to have been removed because it consists entirely of LvMI mutual appreciation, which is not encyclopedic. We already know that LvMI members love each other and are willing to say wonderful things about each other. It does not add value to this article.

Now, if Carol had opened a discussion, I would have allowed her edit to remain until the discussion ended. Since she didn't bother with the D, I'm not going to take her R as a legitimate part of the BRD process. Instead, I'm overturning it. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

[Insert note: my revert was reverted by this now community-banned editor, so perhaps it needs to be reverted back into the article anyway.] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You got it wrong again. He boldly deleted it. I reverted it. The onus was on him to say why it should be removed. In any case, not all of Wikipedia agrees with your dim view of some tenured profs and well known economists. I'll wait a couple days for neutral editors to opine one these several issues in you alls latest deletionist spree and then it will be off to RSN yet again. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for forgetting to mentioned that I brought this to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Removal_of_material_with_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute_connections. SPECIFICO finally gave an opinion there. Only one other editor has replied so far stating that the Gary North blog entry which SPECIFICO originally put in (and someone else filled out with Huerta de Soto comments) is a problem - but I have no problem with removing those. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for formal RSN closure when appropriate since this issue keeps coming up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Bot closed it, now here at archive. The conclusions are clear. North should be removed as self-published blog but LVMI connections not a problem for the other two.
On a second section point raised there, editors also agreed that this Laudito is WP:RS for non-extraordinary factoids like this one which SPECIFICO revert at this diff: LAUDATIO in honour of Professor Jesús Huerta de SOTO from Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid on the occasion of the Doctor Honoris Causa Award Ceremony, October 22, 2010, p. 17.</ref> Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Just saw this after second edit. It didn't occur to me that that could be done. But if that's what you want. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that some text was misplaced in your recent edits. Please have a looksee and correct it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

RSN official close

Here reads:

My reading of this discussion is that there is a consensus that the sources for the first two diffs cited[7][8] are reliable for the claims they are making. However, there has been doubt expressed over the reliability of the blog used to cite the third diff, so that should not be used. There also seems to be a consensus that the sources used in the first two diffs are also reliable for general biographical facts. More controversial claims cited to these sources, for example claims made about the Ludwig von Mises Institute itself, may require a new discussion here if contested. Also, this closure does not deal with WP:WEIGHT issues, and further discussion may be necessary to find consensus on what weight, if any, to accord the contested claims in each of the articles. — User:Mr. Stradivarius/ 7 February 2014

Thus re-adding the two sources in question and leaving out North. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We will still need to deal with the WP:WEIGHT issues, per previous edit summaries and the Admin close. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, we can review all the weight issues in relation to each other. Why not initiate discussion on that general topic rather than everyone removing UNDUE info and starting separate new topics for each or 5-6-7? issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto/Archive_1&oldid=1188934464"