Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Isn't "Viewpoints" section title better than "Ethical and political views?"

The problem with the existing title which needs to be more general, like "VIEWPOINTS". And there is some info under Noninterventionism that could be moved in the subsection to give a fuller context. But let's try to find some more secondary sources or see the whole section eventually nixed as OR. User:Carolmooredc 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to the more general viewpoints, but without discussion here, and editor changed it back. I hope we don't need an RfC on this. Changed section title to make discussion clear. Though if there's a better option, I'm open to it. User:Carolmooredc 23:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an explanation for revert. User:Carolmooredc 18:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More logical ordering

I see that someone changed it to "Ethical and theoretical views" but left the mis-mashed intro and illogical order, including no ethics section. I fixed it. User:Carolmooredc 22:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging or deleting "Economics" section

With the OR and primary sourced material rightfully deleted, there is little left on the "economics" section. If we cannot find secondary RS that respond to Rothbard's substantive "contributions" to economics, I propose this section be deleted or merged with "viewpoints." With such scant material, it does not currently deserve its own section. Steeletrap (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A good comparison for purposes of our discussion of whether Murray's alleged economics contributions are notable/deserving of their own section is the entry of Gary Becker, who is like Murray is an outspoken libertarian. Numerous Sub-sections of Becker's WP relate to his substantive, value-free contributions to economics, i.e., his findings regarding the following: the marginal benefits of divorce and marriage under various circumstances; the valuation entrepreneurs and consumers place on discrimination unrelated to worker productivity; and the deadweight entailed by the competition of interest groups in the democratic process. These findings (as opposed to Becker's normative assertion that the male-female and black-white wage gaps may not be undesirable social outcomes) are descriptive, empirical and scientific.

In contrast, Murray's "economics" statements seem to be normative and prescriptive (i.e. unscientific) in nature, and relate to how he thinks "the free society" ought to be run. I see no evidence that any of his work involved economic research or social science (i.e. the testing of theories through empirical observation) of any kind, so WP:fringe is also a concern. Steeletrap (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Give it til monday :-) I tend to hoard lots of good refs on my harddrive until I get more than enough and have been sitting on them for a while, given 3 weeks of taking a break and then more noticeboard/BLP contretemps. So I am a bit behind.... User:Carolmooredc 22:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to wait. Nothing is permanent here. If you find any RS material you can start an Economist section. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a terrible suggestion—trying to delete a section because of removals of text by Wikipedia editors. What is needed is to actually write about Rothbard's career, you know, to study what it was about and find appropriate references. You can start with the list of books I added to the thread above.

Is it the case that some editors here have no idea how important was Rothbard's contribution to economics? If so, these editors must either educate or recuse themselves. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if you read the below all will become clear to you. User:Carolmooredc 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@binksternet -- Hello Bink. I haven't seen anyone suggest that the current RS material on Rothbard's economic beliefs should be deleted. I believe that Steeletrap's proposal was to move this text so that its placement comports with the presentation of other sections presenting Rothbard's views. At any rate, if you have well-sourced discussion of Rothbard's economic theories that would be helpful. I think that the statement by Trovatore below is helpful. Rothbard's case is like that of Karl Marx. Marx's close supporters might call him an economist first, but the most neutral way to characterize him is, as Trovatore stated, economist second. Rothbard is similar, leaving aside the notability of either Rothbard or Marx's thought. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish editors would take time to understand points before responding to them. No one says we should delete the ample RS material in this piece; the question is whether a significant amount (or any, even) of the RS material relates to Rothbard's work as an economist. The Marx comparison is quite apt in many respects. Steeletrap (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To say WP:RS material was not removed is not true. At this diff] I had to put back removal of all seven refs saying Rothbard was an economist of the Austrian school in the lead.

I assume either Steeletrap or Specifico took it out. Feel free to confess or ask me to do the work of looking for the relevant diff. So please do not tell me you have not tried to remove important WP:RS material. When one has to constantly deal with such nonsense, is there any wonder I had to take a break for 3 weeks!! That I don't have time to find more WP:RS? I cannot spend 15 hours a day on Wikipedia. I already am spending 3-5 hours a day this week dealing with problems caused by such editing. User:Carolmooredc 01:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes please show the RS and quote the writing in it which says that Rothbard should be called an economist before a political theorist. Nobody wanted to remove "economist" only to put it second. It was not necessary for you to waste 3-5 hours finding 7 citations on something that was not disputed here. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)ta

Per the RFC's resolution, I deleted the in-text "economist" guff from the lede, which had the "seven RS". I certainly did not intend to remove the 7 citations altogether from the piece (just the specific passages which contained them), and if I (a noob of three months) did make such a mistake, I'm sure other editors corrected such a blatant error swiftly, bereft of non-GF accusations and insinuations. I do wish you (carol) would stop swiping at straw men; no one is arguing that we should "delete RS" from the piece. Steeletrap (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if User:Steeletrap did it once it would might be a noob mistake. Steeletrap did it twice:

July 26th writing: (conforming lead paragraph to RfD consensus.)
July 28th, 1:44 I put it back writing: (blackwell says economist, not theorist - tag need citation; there was no agreement to remove all the high quality references calling him an economist of the austrian school;)
July 28, 19:41 Steeletrap took it out again writing: (reverted to previous edition that (per WP:con) describes murray's ph.d and work teaching econ but does not call him an "economist", since he isn't notable as such. (See my latest note on talk))

Please don't tell me that was a second accident. It was removal of sources because in your personal opinion Rothbard is not a notable economist.

2 hours later North8000 put it back and it's stayed since then. User:Carolmooredc 05:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

My intention (both times) was to remove the text (without removing the sources). I will have to learn how to do that without also removing the sources from the entire article. I thank you for pointing my mistake out.

You intended to remove the text "economist of the Austrian school" because of your false assertion that "(per WP:con) describes murray's ph.d and work teaching econ but does not call him an "economist"; the removal of the sources just a byproduct of that. Also, I forgot to say above that the RfC which was 9 to 6 and improperly closed only said to put to put theorist first. I am not assuming bad faith, I am merely repeating back your own words and explaining the objective situation. User:Carolmooredc 20:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

However, please remember to follow policy by assuming good faith; on that note (and per WP:SOAPBOX), I ask you to please cross your baseless speculations about my motives in making these edits. Steeletrap (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

When I describe what you do and what you say, I am not speculating.... User:Carolmooredc 17:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's astounding that you think you can state with certainty the intent behind mistakes of other editors. I am not impressed by alleged claims of mind-reading (nor is this community, per WP:Fringe). Steeletrap (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Good summary of Rothbard's economic view/achievements

I like to find a source that lists them. It looks like 30 pages of David Gordon's The Essential Rothbard] lists them all - but no easy 1 page summary (though I'll look again). One of those situations where too many refs make it hard to organize mass of material. Especially when have to spend so much time on dealing with questionable editing on Blps and reporting at WP:BLPN. Sigh... Guess I'll take the rest of the day off. Not an excuse to delete the economics section. Thanks.

I'm concerned about this source. Per David Gordon's wikipedia entry, he was a co-worker and close personal friend of Rothbard. He is not an economist nor an academic. His biography can be an important RS on many matters, but not on his contributions to economics. Steeletrap (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that this has nothing to do with ideology. There are many libertarian economists who are not co-workers of Rothbard and use scientific methodologies; for instance, someone like Milton Friedman or Gary Becker, or (anarchist libertarian) Bryan Caplan or basically any prominent Chicago School economist. I'd love to hear from any of them regarding what they consider to be Rothbard's contributions to economics. The concern of editors stems from the citation of co-workers and friends/ non-economists to detail Rothbard's achievements. Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Clarify later: In other words if he trashes Rothbard, it's ok to use, but if he says something sensible it is not. And it's ok for Steeletrap at this diff to put back his co-worker Hoppe's statement "There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard." ROTFL. ~~I'll explain it to you when I do it.~~ User:Carolmooredc 22:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of this is unclear. What are the two "it"s to which this refers? SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Formats for sources

I hope this advice can be helpful. I am seeing footnotes like this "[26]:167–168". I presume that the numbers 167-168 are page numbers, but this is really not a good format. An alternative is this:

In the bibliography, standardize all the references using our citation template. So [''[[Man, Economy, and State]]'', D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962; [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Full text reprint] of second edition (Scholar's Edition), Mises Institute, 2004, ISBN 0-945466-30-7 can become {{citation|last=Rothbard|title=Man, Economy, and State| publisher=D. Van Nostrand Co. |year=1962 |url=http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp | isbn=0945466307| edition=2nd}} or something similar. This will create a link that becomes handy...
In the footnote text now use the harvcoltxt template, so that ''[[Man, Economy, and State]]'', D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962; [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp Full text reprint] of second edition (Scholar's Edition), Mises Institute, 2004, ISBN 0-945466-30-7 becomes {{harvcoltxt|Rothbard|1962}}.
Place the page numbers within the footnote, not in superscript within the body of the article. This can be done within the template or outside it: {{harvcoltxt|Rothbard|1962|167-168}} or simply {{harvcoltxt|Rothbard|1962}}, pp.167-168, or similar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Ref_name#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once Among other things which people can study it says: Names for footnotes and groups must follow these rules: ... Names may not be purely numeric ...

Obviously it is very confusing to have all numeric ref names like Ref name=06 or Ref name-017 mean. If whoever did them chooses not to change it, I or others will do so soon. User:Carolmooredc 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

{{rp}} is an acceptable tool for specifying pages in footnotes on sources that are used multiple times. We see it described further at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Economic Views -- Money and Banking.

The article currently states:

"He believed that, if there were a 100% reserve requirement and no central bank, privately issued gold-backed monies would predominate."

The premise, "if there were a 100% reserve requirement" is inconsistent with a regime of no government regulation of money and banking. This needs to be investigated in the sources and a clearer statement of Rothbard's view inserted. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

From Huerta de Soto, I get the impression they mean fractional reserve by a private bank is defacto fraud which private law companies could enforce (if they also defined it that way, of course, which Huerta de Soto thinks they should). However, I'm pretty sure Rothbard also has talked about free market money, so he could both hold personal view on fraud, while not assuming all will hold it. Has to be researched, but I'm on vacation out of this town this week so just will be checking in here and there. Will be back full energy after 19th or so. User:Carolmooredc 14:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC close

Obviously since the outside editor closed it with no consensus, there's no consensus to rush and change from economist first or economist info box. There are lots of people whose main occupation was one thing but are as or even better known for something else. Main occupation usually comes first. I see User:Specifico's late note in the RfC about Casey's biography's opinion on what he's best known for. Fine, that's his opinion. But it doesn't change fact Rothbard was an economist. As I've said before, it looks like 30 pages of David Gordon's The Essential Rothbard] lists Rothbard's economic achievements - but I didn't see any easy 1 page summary (though I'll look again and read whole thing). Another test is did he influence a lot of people economically? Obviously he did. But if we could spend more time researching in an NPOV way and less time debating POVs it sure would help get this article improved :-) But I won't be doing much this week. Even Wikipedia let's us take little vacations.... User:Carolmooredc 14:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard has influenced the scientific views of many regarding physics (cosmology) and psychology. Does this make him a notable scientist? Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to share your biases and prejudices openly so no one will mistake you for having a neutral point of view. User:Carolmooredc 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed WP:Undue/OR primary source material on Historical Revisionism

I moved the section up to under his other views, removed the wp:undue sectioning, the load of primary material and the references that do not directly mention Rothbard. I haven't read the confederacy article yet for accuracy and neutrality, and it obviously needs to be cut and based on secondary sources if any of the material is to remain. I'll give you all time to find it.

The following policy quote applies to all articles, not just WP:BLPs:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

But tomorrow is another day... User:Carolmooredc 05:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondary RS are always helpful (though, regrettably, this "secondary or bust" standard doesn't seem to be applied to the positive/hagiographical material in these Mises Scholar entries.

Regarding Barnes/revisionism, I have most fortuitously found a treasure trove of sources in the Justin Raimondo hagiography (see: here). There is also ample discussion of Rothbard's support for the Confederacy. I will add these (and perhaps other) RS to the historical revisionism section later tonight. Steeletrap (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Barnes material

I agree that we should look for secondary sources re: Rothbard and historical revisionism. I disagree with deleting the secondary RS material about Barnes's work on WWII. Since Rothbard praised Barnes as a revisionist historian of WWII, it's informative and encyclopedic to describe Barnes's revisionist work on WWII(per the Lipstadt RS, holocaust denial and support of Hitler's foreign policies). I agree that any synthesis needs to be avoided, but the passage as it stands does not imply Rothbard endorsed (or rejected) Barnes's views on WWII/Holocaust, so there is no synthesis. (Similarly, noting that David Duke, whom Rothbard also praised and cited as an example for "paleolibertarians", was a white nationalist and a former KKK grand wizard is not synth, as it does not imply Murray is a WN or pro-KKK. Steeletrap (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is not necessary to create a new subsection to deal with every thread. Thus making this a subsection of above.

At this diff Steeletrap cut up a Rothbard quote ~~to make~~ so it looks like he was responding to the publications that make allegations about Barnes, when he was dead when two of the three were written. Quite sloppy and POV. Also, he has writings replying to specifically these types of allegations, possibly by Ms. Lipstadt.

In the last week you have been told repeatedly that we need secondary sources that say something is notabile. Search books google you'll probably find some. User:Carolmooredc 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please try to stay on topic (and, per admin warning) please try to follow WP policy by adopting an assumption of good faith in these discussions. I did no such thing with the Rothbard quote, which was written decades before the Lipstadt RS, but was obviously largely responding to criticism of Barnes from virtually all of his peers after WWII; please strike your erroneous accusation. This episode is reminiscent of your erroneous insistence that I identify as an economist.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand: The bit about Barnes's denialism/support for Nazi foreign policies has deeply credible secondary sources (Lipstadt's book). Including it in this piece is informative and does not entail synthesis. Please let me know (without personal attacks and erroneous accusations) where my analysis is wrong. Steeletrap (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the diff, you split the Rothbard primary source quote, leaving first part with no ref. Please stop making false accusations of personal attacks every time someone points out how a result of your action might be perceived. (And just to be clear I clarified my meaning above.) You were told to stop doing that at the recent ANI. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 18:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The ANI said no such thing about me specifically. Second, the quote was there because Murray's defense of Barnes from critics fit logically after a description of Barnes's views, not because I was implying Murray was refuting a book written after he was dead. Lipstadt isn't even mentioned by name in the text, so I have no idea how readers could draw this inference, despite the typographical error in which the word "he" rather than "rothbard" was used. Please stop making erroneous accusations. Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You brought the ANI and numerous complains so I have a right to respond accurately. The closer wrote “your diffs do not support your claims” (and carol should keep her temper). Other editors mentioned problems with the allegations, including here. Stop interpreting every vague or ambiguous statement as an attack on you and you'll feel a lot better. User:Carolmooredc 19:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The user was speaking generally to "anti-Carolites", and attributed inappropriate conduct to you and exaggerated or incorrect claims to anti-Carolites. No anti-Carolite (me or anyone else) was specifically singled out, and you continue to mislead or misunderstand on this point.

Alas, we really need to get back on topic. Steeletrap (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You are number one on the list of 3 accusers (anti-Carolites, hmmm, is it a club :-)? Don't bring ANI's up if you don't want to take reponsibility for your actions. User:Carolmooredc 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical revisionism deserves its own section

Per the words of Murray himself and many RS cited in the article, historical revisionism is seminal to the work of this libertarian scholar (While the current section uses too few secondary RS, I have many I'm going to add later tonight). Therefore, I argue it deserves a section of its own. It also makes no logical sense to list "historical revisionism" under "ethical and political views", since we have to presume that this methodology is concerned with the facts of history rather than a view of history distorted by political and ethical attachments. In other words, it's OR to call Murray's revisionist view of history a political or ethical belief. Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Replacing WP:RS sourcing with personal WP:OR

At this diff user:Steeletrap ignores all principles of NPOV by replacing info from Sage Publications, an academic publisher, as the framer of the issue. Just a few weeks ago at this diff Steeletrap removed info from Raimondo because he was "a friend of Rothbard who is not a philosopher or an academia and wrote a hagiography about him". Glad to see he's had a change of heart, but it is true that an academically published assessment should frame the article and Raimondo and Rothbard quotes can support that framing. Deleting that neutral academic framing and putting in material from "WP:RS" that don't mention Rothbard at all is very much against WP:NPOV policy. Please reread the policy. User:Carolmooredc 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Raimondo is not a philosopher and has no authority on philosophical matters. However, basic biographical details of Rothbard's life are fine from such a (hagiographical/non-academic) source. Steeletrap (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your other concern, it is OT/SYN as to whom Barnes "inspired"; what's important is who this man was whom Rothbard admired so much/what characterized his revisionist work on World War II (which Rothbard "championed"). The answers, from RS (which you keep deleting) are: Holocaust Denial and support for Hitler's foreign policies. Steeletrap (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe this response addresses why you removed the International Encyclopedia of Political Science, which is exactly the kind of source we should be using. Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the source, but the source is (in my view) used to cite in off-topic/OR claim, about whom Barnes inspired. I (a noob) have difficulty deleting text without deleting their accompanying sources, and I'm sorry for the problems that has caused. Steeletrap (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Also note that Carol has (here) removed an RS by Emory University Historian Deborah Lipstadt that, in contrast to the above off-topic discussion of whom Barnes inspired (which was deleted for the reasons provided above), detailed what Barnes's work as a "revisionist historian" actually consisted of. Steeletrap (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good removal, because this is not the Barnes biography. Binksternet (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how, in the context of a passage discussing the influence Barnes's revisionist work on WWII had on Rothbard, an RS discussion of what characterized that work is OT/Syn, but a discussion of other people (unrelated to Murray) who Barnes influened is not off-topic/syn. Steeletrap (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

National Review opinion piece hatchet job a reliable source on revisionism??

At this diff, User:Steeletrap counters the opinion of a neutral reliable source on Rothbard and revisionism International Encyclopedia of Political Science with a ranting opinion piece Hatchet Job from the National Review which hates libertarians for opposing the wars they seek with such blood thirsty imperialistic motivations? It's "scholarly" title is "WP:RS Courting the Cranks" and it says things like: , right-wing fringe nuttery...a rainbow of fruit flavors...thanks in no small part to two of the Right’s great confectioners of kookery — Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. (So we know where he stands on the gay issue, I guess.)

The rest of the article is filled with such biased comments, including the quasi quotes used by the editor on historical revisionism and WWII. Of course, you won't see in National Review the bits about Zionist groups that worked with Hitler on things like the "Haavara Agreement" for the transfer of Jews to Israel and on pressuring the US, England and other nations not to take Jews who didn't want to go to Israel. Perhaps Rothbard wrote about that or defended Barnes writing about it and we need to add that to the article.

Obviously "National Review" is still promoting a big mideast war to kill millions of Arabs and Iranians and Muslims and take back Israel for the Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity, and they can't have the Ron Pauls of the world standing in their way. (They probably support the plan to draft all the gays and feminists and put them in the front lines to clear the landmines and charge the machine gun nests.) But all of the above just gives one a taste of how biased this publication is... on the topic of war, far too biased for any dispassionate use on the topic.

Considering the above, I'm surprised Williamson DOES say some nice things that are quite quotable and could be used if his ranting hatchet job is considered a reliable source. Just a couple:

"...Murray Rothbard, a brilliant man and in many ways an admirable one. ..."
"He was a tireless exponent of the Austrian school of economics and had a real talent for exposing the self-interested motives of self-proclaimed patriots and esurient servants of the public weal who spent the post-war era building what he dubbed the “welfare-warfare state.”"
He admits that Rothbard "loathed National Review, and wrote about the magazine acidly and obsessively"
"In his more rigorous mode, Rothbard is defensible as a political theorist; agree with him or not, his critique of the state is compelling and intellectually coherent. "
" He believed that American militarism supplies its own enemies..." User:Carolmooredc 05:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your above quotations of Williamson's (often effusive) praise of Rothbard, written in the cited piece, contradict your claim of its being a "hatchet job." I invite and encourage you to quote any of the above where appropriate in the entry.

Given Williamson's evident regard for Rothbard's intellect and for at least some of his work, as well as the nuanced, charitable, and even-handed fashion in which he examines this scholar's life and work, I think we have to take the words of this RS all the more seriously regarding his criticism of Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" in Holocaust Denial. Steeletrap (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessive praise and ranting criticism in an opinion piece in an advocacy publication are both indications that an article is not an encyclopedic reference, especially when the publication is an advocacy one opposed to the political view of an individual or group of individuals in a current political struggle, the struggle over whether to get the US involved in 10 trillion dollar war that could escalate to world nuclear war. Anyway, even if WP:RSN editors opined it useable for this article, a careful reading and use would make those biases - and his long term struggle with National Review which is mentioned in the article - clear. But I'll give others a chance to opine before re-reading it. User:Carolmooredc 12:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally it is best if opinion pieces (ranting or not) are cited for the author's opinions and not for matters of fact. Criticisms from a notable source may be worthy of inclusion even if they are deeply biased, provided they are explicitly described as the opinions of the particular author. That appears to be the case here. For claims of fact, on the other hand, such pieces are a very poor choice. Biographical books, journal articles and non-opinion news pieces should be preferred instead. --RL0919 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but we don't really get new facts from this OP-ed. We already know from other sources in the piece that Rothbard was closely associated with and broadly and effusively praised the "revisionist" WWII work of Holocaust denial historians like Harry Elmer Barnes. The "culpably indulgent" bit is the author's opinion, based on Rothbard's praise for the work of and association with deniers. Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As a comparison, suppose I say (owing to his association with and praise for The Donald) Mitt Romney was "culpably indulgent" of Birthers in the 2012 election. That statement is a value-laden opinion, not a fact. Steeletrap (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In proper context, something like this might be appropriate (and I haven't thoroughly verified he says the what is asserted he says below, so this is all real rough draft):

In an opinion piece in the National Review columnist Kevin D. Williamson, calls Rothbard "a tireless exponent of the Austrian school of economics" but criticizes Rothbard's (noninterventionist/antiwar/whatever Williamson says) views and his revisionist views on the origins of World War II. He also criticizes Rothbard's association with (__I'll see who Williamson actually mentions__) and thus accuses "Rothbard and his faction" (faction needs description) of being "________??" of Holocaust Denial.

I have been working on beefing up the economics section to prevent it's proposed removal by Steeletrap which a couple of us have contested. But obviously fuller context, like moving relevant info down from non-interventionism, is needed to thorough debunk the guilt by association charges of this obviously tainted National Review writer. I did add opinion piece and remove puerile quote about third reich; isn't there a word/phrase for using "Nazi" when you don't have an argument? Or a tag or template or something? Geez. User:Carolmooredc 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More POV editing in User:Goetheon reverting back to baseless charge in: Williamson writes and someone paraphrases in the article: The Holocaust tends to get in the way of the Hitler-was-an-innocent-bystander view of history, and so Rothbard found himself making common cause with the “revisionist” historians of the Third Reich. So when the Third Reich existed there were a lot of "revisionist" historians working for Hitler? All those guys besides Rothbard who Williamsom mentions? This Opinion is now being conveyed as a fact? See Dubious tag. And of course Steeletrap removing this from a totally neutral source just turns this article into what he calls a "walled garden." I put it back: Rothbard, like libertarians associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, held that historical revisionism is related to freedom of speech, truth and rationality as opposed to propaganda, indoctrination and mythologies promoted to a gullible public. User:Carolmooredc 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Still just guilt by association nonsense

Steeletrap's minor changes resulting in the below is still nothing but guilt by association, which is both dubious and against Wikipedia:NPOV#Impartial_tone which reads: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.
Do we really need to explicitly say "guilt by association" in the policy?
So who wants to argue that this business based on somone's mere opinion is an impartial tone:

Rothbard's revisionist work on World War II and his association with revisionist historians have drawn criticism. Kevin D. Williamson wrote an opinion piece published by National Review which condemned Rothbard for "making common cause with the “revisionist” historians of the Third Reich", a term he used to describe American Holocaust Deniers associated with Rothbard, such as James J. Martin of the Institute for Historical Review. The piece also characterized "Rothbard and his faction" as being "culpably indulgent" of Holocaust Denial, or the view which "specifically denies that the Holocaust actually happened or holds that it was in some way exaggerated".[62]

If Rothbard actually said something dubious about the Nazi persecution of Jews, quote it. If everyone here thinks it's fine and dandy will inquire for other's opinions next week. User:Carolmooredc 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Merely to quote Rothbards words might raise concern over WP:OR. We need the secondary RS which you cite above. Anyway, why censor this or that view of Rothbard? This particular issue seems consistent with his "controversialist" style and commitment to historical revisionism in a broad variety of contexts. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We are quoting an opinion from an RS (which is favorable to Rothbard in many respects), not endorsing a particular point of view. It is *your* OR to say guilt by association (more like guilt by "endorsement", as Rothbard has broadly endorsed the "war revisionist" work of deniers in addition to palling around with them, while dancing around the issue of their denial) is an unfair criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case any neutral editors want to opine, [I] put at WP:RSN. User:Carolmooredc 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc: This is not clear. Are you saying that you have opened a thread at RSN, or are you sugesting that suggesting that some other editor might do so? Please write complete sentences so as to ensure that other editors can understand. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I put... Past tense Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Review_opinion_rant. User:Carolmooredc 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, what about Joseph Dorfman?

The way it reads right now, it seems to imply that Rothbard's difficulty with Dorfman came from being on the political right. Is that correct? MilesMoney (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

From reading a separate account, which I'm not sure would be RS, there are hints that Rothbard failed to satisfy the department requirements or qualifying exams in macroeconomics or monetary theory. There are other sources, however. The Flood source which I cited on MR's early education says of Rothbard, "His inability to please (then-Professor, later Federal Reserve Chairman) Arthur Burns ground his academic pace virtually to a virtual halt. It would be ten years from the awarding of his Masters degree before Columbia would grant him his doctorate. Burns, who lived in the same building as Rothbard, had told Joseph Dorfman, Murray’s revered doctoral advisor, that “(Burns) expected much more from Rothbard.” Calling on Murray one day, JoAnn found him sobbing at the doorstep to his building, devastated by what he had heard." Burns and Dorfman were apolitical and certainly not left of center in their scholarship, which was solidly mainstream/institutionalist. Columbia had been the center of US scholarship on business cycles since the days of Prof. Wesley Clair Mitchell and the founding of the NBER there. Both Dorfman and Burns were recognized for their work on economic history and institutions with respect to business cycles, the topic of Rothbard's dissertation. As to what happened, there is this comment in Arthur Burns' WP article. You might pursue that citation and the Burns volume on which it comments. Good luck.

=== Columbia University ===
In 1945, Burns became a professor at Columbia University. He was promoted to the John Bates Clark professor of economics more than a decade later, in 1959.

At Columbia, he blocked the acceptance of Murray    Rothbard's thesis on the Panic of 1819, despite having known Rothbard since the latter was a child.

^[1]

^ French, Doug (2010-12-27) Burns Diary Exposes the Myth of Fed Independence, Mises Institute

The relevant portion of French's piece on the Mises site says, "Burns had been plucked from the faculty at Columbia University by Dwight D. Eisenhower to be chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. This appointment launched Burns's career in government and fortunately cleared the way for the acceptance of Murray Rothbard's PhD thesis The Panic of 1819, which Burns had blocked, despite having known Rothbard since he was a child and being asked by David Rothbard to look out for his son."

SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at merging in some of the stuff about Burns. Still not happy about how Rothbard's irrelevant line about being surrounded by lefties makes it sound as if he's blaming them for his PhD's delay, though. MilesMoney (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Miles makes a fair point. We ought to find RS that clarify why it took the extraordinary timespan of 11 years for Rothbard to complete his Ph.D. I expect that an inability or unwillingness to meet the required academic standards, as opposed to a conspiracy related to his political views, is what held him back. But we should find the truth in any case. Steeletrap (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Miles. I see that you added the information about Arthur Burns. I think we still need to mention the "travails with Dorfman" which are mentioned in RS. If you have the time to consider another edit, that would be great. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab at it. Now it mentions both. MilesMoney (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Online Sources -- Survivorship bias

This article, like many which relate to the American libertarian movement, is sourced largely to materials which are easily located online. In fact, many of the web links in the references still contain vestiges of internet searches, for example "rothbard economist" :).

There's an inherent problem in researching a topic such as Rothbard using this easy but biased method of search. There is little public interest in Rothbard, so the materials, old and new, which have been preserved or published on the web are available because they have been selected by those most interested in the subject. These tend to be his followers, supporters, and admirers. The easily retrieved sources are not neutral. There is inherent survivorship bias.

In order to fulfill our mandate to present NPOV complete articles, it is critical to search beyond the fast and easy googling. We need to examine contemporaneous reliable sources which appeared in printed form but were never archived on the web. The interesting matter as to Rothbard's relationship with mainstream academia is fundamental to presentation of his life and career. It is unusual for a Columbia PhD in economics to have had virtually no publications in peer-reviewed academic journals and, having pursued teaching jobs, to have taught only at marginal institutions with no doctoral students. Over the course of Rothbard's adult life, most mainstream universities had a broad spectrum of economic viewpoints represented on their faculties, from Marxists through markets-for-everything theorists. Rothbard's career as what one RS called a "controversialist" rather than an engaged participant in the broad academic discourse of his lifetime is an important fact which needs to be fully researched. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the silliest and most absurd attempt to undermine valid refs I've heard yet; obviously this applies to books.google page numbers. And, FYI, one could always use such a search to find the material and then redo the search in the relevant book to make it more neutral. And I have done it a number of times over the years. Hopefully we won't have to waste hours debating that point, holding up valid research.

Also there it is fine to use sources that might not happen to be on the web, but they must be verifiable someplace and if people request quotes of what you say is in a source you must provide it. User:Carolmooredc 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on online sources is a common problem across Wikipedia. We should be looking for the best sources, not necessarily the most convenient. The best sources in this case should be books (ideally from academic publishers) and articles in journals or respected magazines. They do not need to be "contemporaneous" -- if anything, a later source is better if it reviews and synthesizes the best scholarship to date. The list you started at Talk:Murray Rothbard#Good secondary sources on Rothbard has the right focus overall, although a few of the sources listed need to be used carefully due to close ties to Rothbard. --RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find today that just about everything I've ever wanted to look for was online somewhere, though sometimes behind a pay wall. But I encourage looking everywhere that's WP:RS. Also, per your comment on close sources finally removing that excessively positive quote from Hans-Hermann Hoppe who actually was a close colleague at a University, as opposed to a loose associate from the same Institute or article publishing site. User:Carolmooredc 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it's the Mises Institute affiliates that are the more problematic. Rothbard was the head of the academic program at Mises and was the one directly in charge of hiring and firing the "Fellows" "Scholars" "Faculty" and others who received stipends from the Institute. Hoppe was merely a colleague under the joint employ of the State University of Nevada, Las Vegas. This isn't about warm feelings or comraderie. It's about self-interest. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not wrong about Rothbard having a strange career, but it's probably better if you can point to sources that noticed what you noticed. MilesMoney (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe is a notable observer of Rothbard's life. He and the Mises Institute people are certainly going to remain reliable sources. I see this thread as another attempt to diminish the Mises influence on this article, because the Mises people are very pro-active in putting texts online. To be certain, WP:RS allows us to use all high quality sources without regard to whether they are online or not. I encourage any editor here to find the best Rothbard sources on- or off-line, but I do not think we should discount online sources for any reason. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to get back on topic, it's very important to deal appropriately with survivorship bias. The cure for survivorship bias of online source-hunting is not to do more or different kinds of googling. Instead, we need to search elsewhere for the RS information which has not been archived online. For example we should locate printed criticism which, in hindsight, may be viewed as the refutation of theories, opinions, or assertions which were subsequently ignored by the mainstream and not resurrected by the minority who rejected these RS evaluations. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that offline sources might be good ones, feel free to use them. There's no need to try and counter your suggested survivor bias in any other way than hunting for good offline sources. We do not need to discount or dismiss online sources simply because they are online. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an irony about considering survivorship bias when we evaluate RS. To a great extent, mainstream thought exists because it "survives" better than others, whether it deserves to or not. And then we have editors with confirmation bias. Of course we add material that we like – indeed, how often do editors undertake an Ideological Turing Test when we make our contributions? So mainstream thought survives in its realm and heterodox thought survives in its. – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We have 2 threads here. One is about survivorship bias with respect to web publication of old documents. The other is about a straw-man suggestion to use web publication as a factor in determining whether a reference is RS for Wikipedia. The second thread is off-topic and if any editor wishes to continue, that should be done in a separate thread. A careful review of the survivorship bias link in the section title should clarify the issue for those who are otherwise not familiar with it. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem I am seeing is this: How are you proposing to "deal appropriately with survivorship bias"? To me, it seems to be a private problem, one to be addressed by individuals as they hunt down references. Yet you are bringing it up in a public forum, which causes me to wonder in what fashion you propose to "deal appropriately" with this issue. It cannot be in the form of a diminution of surviving references to the advantage of little known ones. It can only be in the form of article expansion using the more rare references, with proper WP:WEIGHT. The question of proper weight goes directly against survivorship bias. Note that WEIGHT is a Wikipedia policy, part of the Neutral Point of View policy, but survivorship bias is not. There is no direction given by Wikipedia to counter such bias. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, please re-read my text from which you cherrypicked a question and you will see my thoughts on the matter you address above. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is a personal decision to make: how to research the topic. And WEIGHT still applies. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Who has said otherwise? That is not a rhetorical question. You seem to raise straw-man arguments which distract and confuse the community here. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are distracted and confused; that was not my intent. Regarding survivorship bias, there is little to do here regarding notional references that have slipped through the cracks. This thread has no actionable points. At best it is a waste of time relative to WEIGHT; at worst it is another attempt to diminish the influence of the Mises Institute which holds a great deal of reference material quickly and easily available online. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Due weight to views

I want to raise a general concern about the handling of Rothbard's views. I notice that the section covering this contains no general overview of major themes in his ideas. Instead it immediately plunges into a series of subsections on specific topics -- some of them very specific. I have seen this happen in other articles, and it is often a case of undue weight being given to particular items because individual editors consider them important. We are supposed to be summarizing the perspectives of reliable secondary sources, not cherry-picking items we find personally interesting/laudable/scandalous. If thousands of pages have been written about a person (call him John Doe), and Doe's specific view on a topic (say, gardening) is only discussed in the equivalent of two or three pages, then the John Doe article should not have a subsection on gardening that takes up 10% of the prose. I am not a strong expert on Rothbard in particular, so maybe all the topics mentioned are prominent issues in the literature? Anarcho-capitalism and non-interventionism seem to be featured points in almost everything I've read about him, for example. On the other hand, I can't say that I knew his views on historical revisionism or children's rights before looking at this article. IF these are the equivalent of Doe's views on gardening, then they should be accounted for much more briefly. Sometimes a single sentence can cover a low-prominence topic: "Doe's unusual views included the belief that flower gardens should mandatory in every home, a demand that his colleague Jane Smith criticized as unrealistic." (If it turns out that an editor is riding a WP:OR hobby horse or mining marginal "RS" sources such as opinion columns in local newspapers, the topic might be omitted entirely.) So, I'm not trying to stake out any firm position on the specific topics, but I do have reservations about the current content. Feedback from those more knowledgeable of the literature is appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that what set Rothbard apart was his uncompromising willingness to carry his individualist/free market thinking through to its ultimate conclusions. Many economists or social theorists discuss similar issues but start from the premise that the familiar social and political institutions of Western government currently serve worthwhile purposes. That view is, for example, the dominant view held by 20th and 21st Century Austrian School economists (Hayek, Kirzner, Machlup and carious Cato Institute scholars, for example. Rothbard, on the other hand, entirely abandoned that premise and examined various topics de novo from a purely deductive point of view. As a result, Rothbard arrived at various conclusions which were otherwise not set forth in such a clear manner. The significance of these conclusions is not that they are scandalous or shocking, but merely that they are essential to Rothbard's approach, his life, and his thought. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So is this how you would describe the interpretations in the literature, or just your own view? What I'm trying to get at is that we should look for how secondary sources handle Rothbard's views, and write the viewpoints section with those in mind. If, for example, children's rights is a big standalone theme in the secondary sources, with lots of articles or book chapters about that one thing, then by all means have a subsection on that. On the other hand, if the major interpretive theme in the literature is "Rothbard was willing to reject previous assumptions and follow his deductions wherever they led", and children's rights is occasionally mentioned as one of many examples, then that detailed topic should be subordinated to an example within the larger theme. (Let me emphasize: if; not trying to say this is the specific thing that should be done now.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been difficult to find independent RS discussions of Rothbard's work. He is the godfather of a certain strain of thinking but is almost entirely ignored among mainstream or academic publications. From what I can tell, there are no ready solutions to the questions you raise. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RL, this confuses me. The "children's rights" bit is discussed and criticized at length by RS, and the "historical revisionism" stuff (in addition to being discussed by RS) was by Rothbard's own admission seminal to his thought. Therefore I don't understand how the inclusion is "cherrypicked" or biased. Steeletrap (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I have been very clear that I am offering examples of things that I wonder about, not claiming that a specific passage is biased. If you are saying that the literature about Rothbard discusses these issues frequently and prominently -- for example, if reading almost any secondary source book giving an overview of his ideas, I would find a substantial discussion of historical revisionism and a substantial discussion of children's rights -- then so be it. On the other hand, if you are just saying that some reliable sources exist, then I don't think you are understanding what the question of due weight is about. The question is not, "Is there any basis for mentioning these issues at all?" Rather it is, "Are we emphasizing the things that secondary sources usually emphasize about him?" There might be a reliable source for how tall he was, or what kind of pets he owned, but if these are not prominent aspects of his persona, then we would not want a prominent discussion of them in the article. Are we treating these issues in proportion to their prominence? That's the question. And it is a question I'm asking, not a demand for something specific to be added or removed. --RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Thank you for the clarification, RL. I appreciate your concerns and your efforts to improve this article. Though WP:Undue should be used to evaluate all content in the article, I do think the problem is more salient in the numerous (and generally positive) content from fringe or primary sources connected to Rothbard, as opposed to that added from independent RS. Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I applaud RL's effort to gain some objectivity relative to Rothbard's career. It's important to locate some secondary and even tertiary references which provide an overview, something we can use to gauge WP:WEIGHT. What's next is to list such sources here. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding SPECIFICO's concerns, it should be noted that the RS from Politics, Philosophy and Economics journal (for some info on the journal, see: 1) I cited is one of the most credible sources in this entire article. Incidentally, the only reason such a journal discussed Rothbard's "children's theory" is that the RS academic who publishes with that journal used to be a Mises Scholar, and now vocally and emphatically speaks out against it, labeling it a "cult." That we need to search out for self described "ex-cultists" who have abandoned "the Institute" to discover critical RS evaluations of Rothbard's work (as opposed to fan-club style praise) speaks to the extent of the walled garden problem in the Rothbard and other Mises Institute-related articles. Steeletrap (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

An excellent point, on topic. I stand corrected. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:RL0919 - You are right that for years people have been cherry picking, mostly from primary sources, both their favorite issues and/or things that they think make Rothbard look bad. And of course there are sources that do what you propose. I've gotten pretty sick of such sources, no matter how far removed from Rothbard, being gutted and/or removed while garbage like a National Review guilt by association screed is thrown in there. I don't have 5 hours a day to argue for putting in good material and taking out low quality material. However, I am glad to see that a few other editors are taking note and perhaps if I feel they are willing to put up the good ~~fight~~ [added later because of sensitivities: "debate"] I'll come back next week and try again... Coming off vacation and working on far more fulfilling own projects this week. User:Carolmooredc 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right that for years people have been cherry picking, mostly from primary sources, both their favorite issues and/or things that they think make Rothbard look bad.

Please see WP:AGF.

perhaps if I feel they are willing to put up the good fight I'll come back next week and try again...

Please see WP:BATTLE. — goethean 22:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why can one say that the article is a walled garden where supporters haven't put in any negative material from outside the garden, but one can't say that over the (4 or 5 years i've watched this article) some editors put in favorite issues and/or things that they think make Rothbard look bad. User:Carolmooredc 00:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Child-starving and euthanasia

User:Srich32977 has attempted (see: 1) to delete several substantive paragraphs, sourced by top-flight RS, regarding Rothbard's support for the parental "right" to let their children starve to death/die. His mass content deletion is grounded in the view that Rothbard only supports the "right" to allow one's children to starve to death in the case of euthanasia.

That Rich's view is entirely erroneous can be seen from the quoted passage in the wiki entry and more importantly, the interpretation of Rothbard's remarks from the cited peer reviewed RS from the well-regarded Politics, Philosophy and Economics journal. It can also be seen through a number of other unequivocal statements by Rothbard in the same book, such as: "[a] parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights" (2)

The basis for Rich's insinuation is a single footnote (3) of Rothbard's following one of his many sentences on the right to let children die. "The" footnote reads "On the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, see Philippa R. Foot, Virtues and Vices". In light of his clear-cut and copious remarks on this matter and the RS interpretation from a highly regarded mainstream journal, is preposterous to claim that this one footnote, which simply seeks to draw a conceptual distinction (and does not endorse any particular view regarding euthanasia), demonstrates that Rothbard only supports the right to let the kids die under the extremely rare and limited circumstance of euthanasia (as we conceive of and define the term). Steeletrap (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Rothbard paragraph continued from the original edit (by Steeletrap) and contained three footnotes, two of which explicitly dealt with euthanasia. Here they are:

[5]Cf. the view of the individualist anarchist theorist Benjamin R. Tucker: “Under equal freedom, as it [the child] develops individuality and independence, it is entitled to immunity from assault or invasion, and that is all. If the parent neglects to support it, he does not thereby oblige anyone else to support it.” Benjamin R. Tucker, Instead of a Book (New York: B.R. Tucker, 1893), p. 144.
[6]The original program of the Euthanasia Society of America included the right of parents to allow monstrous babies to die. It has also been a common and growing practice for midwives and obstetricians to allow monstrous babies to die at birth by simply not taking positive acts to keep them alive. See John A. Robertson, “Involuntary Euthanasia of Defective Newborns: A Legal Analysis,” Stanford Law Review (January 1975): 214–15.

Did the partial paragraph, out of the entire chapter, attempt to capture the overall theme of Rothbard's thought on this subject? Or was it the result of marginal mining of RS sources? – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add additional content to better contextualize the discussion. That is encouraged. What are not encouraged (and indeed, discouraged) are mass deletions of reliably-sourced material, or spurious attempts to combat the RS (and common-sense) interpretation of Rothbard's support for the general right to let children starve to death. Steeletrap (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added the material, and I noted where you omitted footnotes. Your comment (above) that my justification was limited to a single footnote was made after I included the full paragraph. What is to be encouraged is User:RL0919's admonition that we "capture the overall themes" and avoid "marginal mining...". – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not constructive to suggest that editor Steeletrap was not attempting to write an accurate representation of the cited source or was "marginal mining" the meaning of which is obscure but which the context suggests is your aspersion on Steeletrap's good faith here. Please discuss content not editors. There is nothing to prevent you, Srich, from better capturing the overall theme by adding additional RS material to the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No one objects to adding the footnotes. Please add them to the article so we can put this issue to rest (and so we can delete the ugly and distracting "footnotes omitted" notices). Add the literal footnotes, with no OR, and our readers can determine for themselves whether they imply the peer-reviewed RS journal article (written by a Rothbard scholar) is wrong in its interpretation. Steeletrap (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that my "omission" of the footnotes stemmed from my quoting from a reproduction of Rothbard's quote in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, which itself omitted the footnotes, presumably for the (obvious) reason that they have only tangential importance for the matter at hand. Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

this edit is wrong and should be reverted. Wikipedia simply does not add in fake footnote numbers in order to more precisely reproduce quoted text. No offense intended, but this is a crazy idea. People don't do this when writing term papers, either. — goethean 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The footnotes are not fake. MOS:QUOTE says the wording of quoted text should faithfully reproduce what was written. The fact that Rothbard was talking about euthanasia is critical. – S. Rich (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've requested comment here. — goethean 14:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Superscripted numerals which refer to nothing in the Wikipdia article are unhelpful to the reader, and I find it extremely bizarre that you can't grasp this. — goethean 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I had included "^{[4 (footnote omitted)]}" at each of the missing footnotes, but other editors did not like the idea. The original posting did not mention the fact that Rothbard was talking about euthanasia and presented a version that simply said he was advocating the right of parents to starve their children for whatever reason. More work needs to be done to present this material. Indeed, the question as to whether this small piece about Rothbard serves well to describe his overall contributions is under debate. – S. Rich (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard published he quoted text under his name. You need to allow him to take responsibility for his own freely published words. Some material was omitted by an ellipsis. Let's restore that material, and beyond that, I'm having a really hard time understanding why we cannot take Rothbard's words at face value. — goethean 14:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that including the footnote numbers from the original is not necessary or helpful, and it isn't standard practice for quoting. This whole business about whether the secondary source misrepresented Rothbard sounds like original research to me. If there is a different secondary source that discusses the first one and says it misrepresents him, then maybe use that instead. Or maybe the entire topic is being over-inflated and should be trimmed down. Why, for example, do we even need a block quote about this? An encyclopedia article ought to describe important controversies about the subject, but it doesn't need to play them out in detail. (Assuming, arguendo, that this is an important controversy, as per my questions about due weight in the section above.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would usually agree with that, but this is such a thorny and controverial issue that I think that everyone would be more comfortable quoting the author directly. Any summary will omit some nuances, and that will result in disagreement. — goethean 15:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just User:Srich32977 OR, that because Rothbard mentions euthanasia in footnotes after some of these sentences, that his theory must *only* apply in those cases despite Rothbard's clear language to the contrary. And he has the gall to imply I'm biased for supporting the RS and common-sense interpretation! Steeletrap (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I altered the lead in to the quote to this after a complaint about his advocating allowing parents to murder their children—"Applying his conception of property rights and self-ownership, Rothbard argued in The Ethics of Liberty against forcing parents to feed their children."—but it was almost immediately changed again to talk of passive killing etc., which is not accurate. I'm a socialist, I've no axe to grind here. Why was my lead into the quote changed? Can someone explain what was wrong with it? All the quoted passage that we are discussing says is that he is against forcing parents to feed their children. That obviously doesn't means he advocates parents not doing so, or that he believes parents should be allowed to starve their kids to death (which would imply he advocates parents being allowed to prevent others from feeding their children, which by simple point of logic, his logic, he would be against). LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your restoration of the Rothbard text as cited by the RS Callahan article, has been reverted and distorted by various editors since then. The removal of RS text has been raised by the editor who originally cited the complete Callahan discussion. See here: [1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) [User:SPECIFICO]????

I see. Thanks. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reduced passage

I agree with RL's concern that, for both stylistic and substantive reasons, this discussion could be cut down. (Though since it is addressed by one of the highest quality RS in the article, I would strenuously object to deletion.) I think the below primary source quotation of Rothbard would cover the essentials, in noting his absolute support for the right to let "any" child starve, while also noting that he believes this will be quite rare in a free society. We would retain the secondary RS's response to these remarks (which are part of the broader quote it is responding too). The footnotes would be omitted because they are not particularly informative as to this discussion (and simply do not, as a matter of logic, say what User:Srich32977 says they do in his OR argument). should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any [bold mine --- steele] baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum. Steeletrap (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That "proposal" obscures and misrepresents the thread of Rothbard's argument and its basis in his fundamental principles. Moreover it introduces a teleological moral stance which is inimical to Rothbard's explicit rejection of utilitarian ethics. This isn't really a negotiation. Editor Steeletrap, you introduced a well-sourced bit of text which in my opinion was the minimal and most compact writing sufficient to represent the source. It should stand on its undeniable merits. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] I disagree, SPECIFICO. I appreciate your concern on the question of Rothbard's ethics, which are "anti-utilitarian" to the core. But while "natural law" (a term he never specifically defines, but apparently equates to the "non-aggression principle" of pop novelist Ayn Rand) does for Rothbard always trump all moral considerations, it does not follow from this that he regards bad consequences/human suffering to be irrelevant factors. It is possible that Rothbard regards the starvation of children to be immoral, even if this unfortunate practice does not justify government "coercion" of the parent (i.e. violation of the Ayn Rand principle). Therefore I see nothing wrong with including his speculation that child starvation would (owing to the "free market for babies") be at a "minimum" in the free society, even if it is relatively unimportant compared to the far more fundamental moral question of always upholding the Ayn Rand natural law principle. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Reducing the length of the block quote is definitely a step in the right direction, and this reduced version does seem to capture the key points of the longer version. It don't see how it "introduces" anything. Not sure what "This isn't really a negotiation" is supposed to mean, but building consensus among editors is part of what Talk pages are for. (I assume the bolding is just for discussion purposes here, not something to go in the article. We should not be adding emphasis to quotes in articles -- that's a POV minefield for sure.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Not a negotiation" means we should not compromise the content or clarity of the article to accommodate an unsupported insistence on a spurious issue concerning the footnotes. As to the content, I believe that those who have read Rothbard's work in their breadth will recognize that the argument he weaves in this matter is highly typical and characteristic of his thinking. Without Rothbard's unswerving deductive inquiry, one would not fully understand the issue nor arrive at his stated conclusion. Therefor it is clear to me that any truncation of Rothbard's thread of reasoning must be rejected in this case. "Negotiation" in that sense, is surrender to misrepresenting Rothbard's thought. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard's Chapter 14 goes on to decry various violations of civil rights and liberties of children. (Indeed, much more of the chapter discusses this aspect of children's rights.) How do we incorporate this aspect of Rothbard's views into the article? I should hope some secondary sources discuss. – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC

[Insert] I don't understand how you came to think that editors who disagree with your fallacious footnote argument are somehow seeking to "blackwash" (your term) this article. If you can find RS discussion of Rothbard (preferably not from walled garden articles written in fringe journals Rothbard personally founded) on children, please add it. I do ask that you cease to engage in mass-deletion or undermining of high-quality RS interpretation of Rothbard, based on your (uncompelling, per the remarks of peers of all ideologies) OR footnote thing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't just stand there, do it. But unless you have specific content and policy based concerns, please do not block the addition of other important content. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I should start a different thread for this or not, but here I go. The article says: "defended the general right of parents to let "any" child die by passive means such as starvation". Where does one have any credible source for that? Rothbard does not defend the right of parents to let children die. He defends the fact that the parent has no obligation towards the child. If any one in society wishes to feed the children it would be perfectly permissible under Rothbardian ethics. Furthermore, he states that if the parent does not wish to feed the child he should announce that publicly, and only if no one else wishes to feed the child, the child would die. Saying it is not your obligation to feed/save the poor is not the same as saying you have a right to let the poor die. -- Fsol (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Fsol. I think you may be getting into OR territory with your interpretation. How would any 3rd party know the child was starving? Would Rothbard allow strangers to trespass in the home of the parents to feed the child? What if they left a mess on the floor? etc etc. I'm not sure what the word "any" adds to the discussion. If I say that I have the right to piss in the park, do I have to say "any" park? Not clear. I think that Rothbard's contribution, as noted by Gene Callahan, is to attempt to derive a moral code from the single self-ownership principle. As Callahan notes in his article, Rothbard's approach is a radical departure from the tradition of Western thought which views the social contract and the legal systems to which it gives legitimacy, as a set of compromises among multiple values and principles which are fundamentally in conflict. At any rate, since Rothbard does not introduce the "any" issue, I think that is OR for our purposes and does not appear to be discussed by secondary RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The territory of original research is indeed a problem with this passage. We should not include anything about child starvation for reasons of euthanasia unless this issue is discussed by third party observers. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Rothbard doesn't need Wikipedia editors to save him from the clear, straight-forward meaning of his voluntarily published words. Attempting to defend Rothbard from the clear meaning of his own words is a violation of WP:OR. — goethean 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is trying to "save" anybody. All we're saying is that if you have the right not to feed me it doesn't mean you have to right to make me starve. If Rothbard said "the general right of parents to let "any" child die by passive means such as starvation", then we should have a source for that, not a personal interpretation of his work.

Specifico, to answer your questions, the parents have to announce the fact that they do not intend to take care of their child. Otherwise, he argued, their case is akin to setting a trap for a guest. So the parents may chose not feed the child, but for the child to starve, everybody in society also has to chose not to feed the child. -- Fsol (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am sorry if I left the wrong impression that I was picking on the word "any". I am not. The only reason it is placed within quotation marks is because that is the way in which it appeared in the article. -- Fsol (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Callahan's article is prime RS peer-reviewed refereed article in a respected academic journal. The Rothbard text was selected and cited by Callahan. The what-if's, modulations, mitigations, and modifications are not present in Callahan nor in the Rothbard text he cites. You and Bink have both removed validly sourced content, which should be restored while this discussion is underway. Rothbard opposed coercion/aggression by the baby if the baby were deemed to have a right to be fed by the parents. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's implied by the non-aggression principle. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Torture of criminal suspects

Rothbard does not advocate the torture of petty criminals by police; he holds that the harm done to the criminal suspect by the state should not exceed the harm that the criminal has done. If we say his libertarian beliefs include torture of criminals then we should not imply this means all criminals. In his own writing he gives 'murderer' as an example. We also should limit the example to murder suspects. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. We should not say that Rothbard only supports torture in the case of murder, because this is not in the text. If I say "I don't hate petty criminals, but I hate felons" and offer murderers as an example, that does not mean I only hate murderers. #logicmatters Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To that point, Rothbard states that he approves the aggression by police because it is payment in kind for the aggression of the criminal (subject to the police correctly guessing whodunnit per Rothbard.) Thus Rothbard's principle is that aggressors should not be protected from aggression. He doesn't go into any of the finer points of implementation (which is perhaps covered by the implied risk police take if they're later discovered to have tortured a suspect who is acquitted of all charges.) Using murder as an example does not limit the discussion to murder. Otherwise Rothbard, an able and articulate wordsmith, would have used the word murder for crime and murderer for suspect throughout. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we are wandering away from the text. The words "beat" and "torture" appear four times, but they do not appear in connection with just any criminal. Rothbard says the following in his Chapter Twelve. I have added bolding for emphasis:

"For any physical force used against a non-criminal is an invasion of that innocent person’s rights, and is therefore itself criminal and impermissible. Take, for example, the police practice of beating and torturing suspects—or, at least, of tapping their wires."
"Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information... But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man..."
"As a corollary, police can never be allowed to commit an invasion that is worse than, or that is more than proportionate to, the crime under investigation. Thus, the police can never be allowed to beat and torture someone charged with petty theft, since the beating is far more proportionate a violation of a man's rights than the theft, even if the man is indeed the thief."

The proportionate aspect must be honored. It would be wrong to give the reader the impression that the beating and torturing of a suspect was okayed by Rothbard even for petty crimes. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Break between Murray and CATO over use of evidence in econ

People are surprised that CATO, which like them or not is today associated with some scholars who do serious work, used to be intimately associated with Murray. But back in the day, CATO was widely regarded as a crackpot fringe group, and housed scholars who were contemptuous of wicked "deviationists" like "Mister Negative Income tax" Milton Friedman. It was entirely devoted to promoting Murray's "deductive" and evidence-free approach to economics, and also championed the broader vision of this instructor of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic. As David Gordon writes: "Someone acquainted only with these facts would never suspect that Rothbard was a principal founder of Cato and that the organization had been established to promote his distinctive variety of libertarianism." (1)

As David Gordon notes (in the article cited above), the "break" between Murray and CATO started over the hiring of economist David Henderson, who used evidence in his models. Murray was predictably infuriated by the hiring. As Gordon ominously observes, "to hire a non-Austrian was hardly in keeping with the original mission of Cato". Murray's inability to produce anything after years of promising to write a book on his philosophy, and receiving CATO grant money for his work (which ended up becoming The Ethics of Liberty), also played a role in the dispute.

Henderson's hiring marked the beginning of dark times at CATO. Corrupted by the evidence based models, Cato now on Gordon's account "has no longer supported the abolition of the Fed" and their new aim "is to influence policy in Washington". They also have "shunned and defamed" defenders of the gold standard. Understandably, Murray was soon out the door.

Someone with the inclination to read through the entire soap opera should do the research and make a sub-section describing his relationship with the CATO Institute, perhaps under "political activism". The place to start is David Gordon's "The Kochtopus vs Murray N. Rothbard", which has two parts (1) (2). Steeletrap (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV interpretation of Rothbard on Hernnstein-Murray book

At this diff I did a better summary of what Rothbard said and removed the prejudicial and WP:OR sentence As a means to this end, he regarded the study of similarities and differences between different ethnic groups—what he termed "racialist science"—as "an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." Of course what Rothbard was referring to in that sentence was a group of scientists studying race, not some specific racialist (synonym for "racist") scientific view. (In other words, had other scientists come up with more relevant statistics about material nutrition, lead poisoning in lower income housing, and poor education, he inferred as a scientifically minded person he'd have to look at those scientific facts.) Sure, it takes a little more explanation to do it right. Considering that there wasn't any secondary source calling this article notable, let's not turn his enthusiastic review of a NY Times review into the inference of some hardcore racialist viewpoint. User:Carolmooredc 21:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The notion of races, in the sense that we mean for protected minorities, is not biological, it's sociological. There is no racialist science that isn't racist. MilesMoney (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: That may be true, but we can't assert it on wikipedia without a secondary source. Otherwise it's WP:OR.]User:Carolmooredc 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit is flat wrong. It says "racialist science" right in the text of the section. And yet CarolMooreDC removes "racialism" from the header, claiming that the word is never mentioned! The word should go back into the header, as the section quotes Rothbard discussing how racialist science is important to his property-based anti-egalitarian politics! Bizarre behavior. — goethean 22:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. MilesMoney (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"Racialist science" in quotes does properly reflect what he wrote. Is it WP:Undue to put one phrase in a section header, I mean if one is trying to write an NPOV article? That is the question. User:Carolmooredc 00:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have some serious concerns with the reliability and accuracy of OP's editing and edit summaries, in this and other WP articles. OP claimed in her edit summary that the term "racialism" was a misrepresentation of the passage, as this language was "not used by any source." In fact, the term "racialist", which is the adjectival form of "racialism", is repeatedly used by Rothbard in the passage (he also uses "racialism" on one occasion). What on earth are we to do with an editor who, far from actually reading the article, doesn't even bother to take 15 seconds to press "control-F"? to verify edits relating to the use of terms?

OP frets that the passage is non-neutral because it in her judgment implies Rothbard is a racist. This concern reflects OP's fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that accurately describing an author's controversial views (even if widely regarded as fringe or disreputable) does not constitute a violation but rather an upholding of WP:NPOV. Rothbard endorses "racialist science" and TBC's thesis that blacks are (on the average and owing to genetics not environment) dumber than whites. That's a racist thesis, according to both the dictionary and common-sense understanding of the term. Murray is forthrightly applauding an intellectual defense of racism. (BTW - "Racialism", which I agree is (rather than racism) the term we should use to describe Rothbard's views, is a genteel synonym of racism) (1) (2) (3.

OP also misunderstands the main point of the passage, which is to endorse TBC's thesis, and examine (with enthusiasm) the political and social implications of its being propagated and promoted. When Murray discusses racialism as a "defense against aggressors", he is specifically refers to to an intellectual defense of racial inequality as the product of biology, rather than free market inequities or inefficiencies; the potential aggressor seem to be racial minorities who might favor "coercive" programs like Head Start to redress inequality. The main point of the passage, which currently describes racialism as "defensive" without clarification, and also features a boatload of off-topic cheerleading about how "paleos" favor liberty etc, should be restored in future edits. Steeletrap (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to return the passage to NPOV conforming to the cited references. If the disruptive behavior continues, we can deal with it in the proper forum. I hope that will not be necessary. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap writes regarding his changes at this diff: "The main point of the passage, which currently describes racialism as "defensive" without clarification..."

The section is called "SO: WHY TALK ABOUT RACE AT ALL?" The first paragraph repeats that message. The second paragraph says, as I neatly summarized it: He wrote that populists and libertarians should not just leave these issues to the scientists because not only were they related to freedom of inquiry and anti-egalitarianism, but "racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors."

Now maybe a more eloquent summary could be written, but his point is clear. Try reading it again. Also, removing the below removes Rothbard's whole reason for writing the essay in the first place, which is just POV:

In 1994, Rothbard wrote about the favorable response to Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve, including by the New York Times science reporter Malcolm W. Browne. He notes that while the Herrnstein-Murray book focused overwhelmingly on inheritable differences within ethnic or racial groups, Browne also treated with respect books by scientists J. Philippe Rushton and Seymour Itzkoff which investigated differences between races. [Rothbard] wrote that this new willingness to discuss these issues... (Note correct where I meant Rothbard.) Obviously, Rothbard was celebrating what he thought was the New York Times science editor agreeing with him.

If you want to infer that Rothbard's a racist or a believer in Racialism (racial categorization) or a believer in some specific version of "racialist science" you at least have to provide more quotes. But that would start getting even more heavily into WP:OR and WP:Synth.

And please do not say that making POV interpretations of primary sources less pov is disruptive. I mean this article is headed to WP:ORN; though who knows if any outside editors will opine. User:Carolmooredc 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have striken the false reference to me above. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So easy to get you two confused, what with the two "S" letter anonymous handles, even when one double checks. (Plus evidently focused on the bold SPECIFICO signature that immediately followed the non-bolded Steeletrap signature.) (Please do not assume more than is stated and remove other's innocent talk page remarks.) User:Carolmooredc 11:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I struck the false statement about me you made above. The diff was SPECIFICO's, not mine, and I did not comment on it at all, much less "defend" it. SPECIFICO was also right to cross your remarks about her, as the quotation you cited was mine, not hers. So many errors raise concerns of WP:Competence; it's difficult to collaborate with someone whose contributions are grounded in false assertions regarding policy, the conduct of other users, and the statements of RS. Steeletrap (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV interpretation of Rothbard on Self-Defense

Once again an editor cherry picks the most outrageous statement Rothbard has made from a chapter on Self-Defense, and probably cherry picks Callahan’s most negative comment. I don’t have easy access to the article right now so cannot say if that’s one short paragraph out of dozens on other aspects of the book or essay. I guess I’ll have to ask someone at the Wikipedia research desk. “Self-defense and police action” may not be best section header, but at least it’s not an attack section header. User:Carolmooredc 01:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] The consistent inaccuracy and unreliability of your edits undermines your credibility, User:Carolmooredc. The section is not about "self-defense," but punishment theory. The referenced passage is talking specifically about the torture of suspect, not self-defense. You need to verify sources before alleging that they are cherry-picked; they're not. The torture bit is specifically what Callahan mentions (and condemns) about Rothbard's punishment theory. As illustrated here and by your false statements about Murray's article (not) mentioning the word "racialism", you consistently fail to read sources before commenting and making edits based on what you hope they say. Steeletrap (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard isn't talking about punishment theory, but self-defense and then goes off on this tangent about whether cops can torture people (or would they) knowing they'll be criminally prosecuted. Out of context it's absurd; in context it's just questionable speculation. And the section is about whatever we decide to make it, considering that the whole section on his views is a summary of a chapter. Does Gene Callahan actually summarize what he wrote there or just have had two sentences that were both pretty much quoted there. And of course other WP:RS may have other things to say. User:Carolmooredc 03:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg you to read the passage. Rothbard is talking about punishment theory in the relevant section of the chapter; he's talking about what the criminal deserves (hence petty criminals can't be tortured, but (for example) murderers can). Also please read the RS. Buy the article and read it instead of speculating about what you hope it says. Steeletrap (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Specifico at this diff reverts my NPOV interpretation writing (Revert OR. This has been resolved at RSN.) What has been resolved, that Callahan can be used with no indication of what he said about what Rothbard thinks? With no quote when an editor asks for it? User:Carolmooredc 02:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Any WP:COMPETENT editor who examines the cited RS can see that your statements above are false. You should examine the cited source (Callahan) and the Rothbard text to which he refers and the talk page and RSN postings on this matter. Either you are willfully denying the settled text or you are not competent to edit this section. I strongly suggest you stand back and consider the sources and discussion before continuing to assert your denial. SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to make this personal, but Carol's been making some pretty bad mistakes over and over. When I see her edits, I'm going to have to give them a second look because she's wrong a lot about obvious stuff. MilesMoney (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidently Users:Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and MilesMoney are unaware of Wikipedia:V#cite_note-Courtesy-10 which reads: When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.

This means that if another editor requests a quote in the article text to prove that a source says something it should be supplied as a courtesy. It does not say "only if the source is not available online". And most people can't read Sage articles readily, though I am going to try a couple other venues. As I expressed above, while there is no doubt Callahan is a reliable source, it is unclear if either use of Callahan is just a sentence or two in passing, perhaps with the rest of the material editor WP:OR. I have certainly seen enough creative interpretation of sources lately to wonder. (The abstruse abstractat this Sage link gives no indication.) User:Carolmooredc 11:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[French-1] French, Doug (2010-12-27) Burns Diary Exposes the Myth of Fed Independence, Mises Institute

[1]