Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Sentence moved to source that does not support it

Since I get reverted no matter how clear the explanations in my edit summary, let me point out that at this diff the sentence "Rothbard warned that the mid-East conflict would draw the U.S. into a world war. " was moved from the original source The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America (the page in question having an internet link) to Rothbard's "War Guilt in the Middle East" which doesn't talk about "world war" at all. Searching world and war separately I didn't find any reference to some international conflagration. (Should I search international conflagration as well?) Please explain where this concept was explicitly mentioned or very strongly implied, the only excuse for moving it. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 12:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Desperately need sources for contributions to econ

My view is that Rothbard is not notable as an economist. Others have disagreed, and the page reflects their position, which is fine. But if "economist" is going to be in the lede and used as the first word to describe Rothbard, we need sources describing his contributions to economics. These should be published in mainstream journals, not the Mises Institute journals (which, fringe concerns aside, were personally established by Murray, so COI issues abound). Note however that it would be fine to publish a Rothbard co-worker's article if the article were published in a mainstream, reliable journal.

As the article currently stands, there is virtually nothing relating to Rothbard's contributions to economics (which are distinct from moral opinions on how the economy should be run; value judgments such as "contempt" for John Maynard Keynes are not scientific). I have tried looking and can't find anything other than the Caplan article. However, I expect those who believe he is a notable economist know more about his contributions to economics than I do. Please add these contributions. It looks silly for the page to have 2 sentences about Murray's work as an economist after describing him chiefly an economist in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been scouring the indices of academic journals and other locations where scholarly or economic history content might have been published but not (yet) archived on the web. The results are disappointing. There are various writings of Rothbard which state his opinions, political views and beliefs, in addition to the previously-noted polemics and controversialist writings. I have not found any theoretical or analytic writings in which Rothbard is initiating or commenting on academic work. The scarce comments on Rothbard's economic views, such as the Caplan piece already cited in this article, are rather dismissive and don't point to detailed academic contributions by MR. I will continue to search and I hope that other editors will also search. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeating myself:

  • Gerard Casey (philosopher) said Rothbard "was widely regarded as the intellectual leader of the younger generation of the Austrian school..." Page 7 of Murray Rothbard, ISBN 9781623563165
  • Ralph Raico said Rothbard was "one of the most prominent" among "later Austrian economists, following in Mises's footsteps." Page 45 of Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School, ISBN 9781610165549
  • Edward Elgar Publishing writes a blurb to describe their Rothbard book The Logic of Action Two: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School. The description appears online:[1] "Murray N. Rothbard was the leading voice of the Austrian School of Economics during its post-war American revival... The book confirms Rothbard as an intellectual giant, and presents his many contributions to the Austrian School..."
  • Randall G. Holcombe edited a book about 15 influential Austrian economists in which Hans-Hermann Hoppe authored a chapter devoted solely to Rothbard: chapter 15. Hoppe said that "Murray N. Rothbard has come to occupy a position of unique influence within the intellectual tradition of Austrian economics... Rothbard is the latest representative of the mainstream within Austrian economics... Rothbard is the main exponent of the main rationalist branch of Austrian School... Rothbard is the latest and most comprehensive system-builder within Austrian economics... Rothbard is the latest and most systematically political Austrian economist... In the area of theoretical economics, Rothbard contributed two major advances beyond standards set by Mises's Human Action." Pages 223–226 of The Great Austrian Economists, ISBN 9781610164399
  • In the same Holcombe-edited book as above, Thomas DiLorenzo writes in passing about Rothbard. He says that Frederic Basquiat was "a model of scholarship for those Austrians who believed that general education—especially the kind of economic education that shatters the myriad myths and superstitions created by the state and its intellectual apologists—is an essential function (if not duty) of the economist. Mises was a superb role model in this regard, as were Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard, among other Austrian economists."
  • Randall G. Holcombe himself said in the foreword to The Great Austrian Economists that "Two of Mises's American students stand out for their academic achievements and for their impact on the modern Austrian school: Israel M. Kirzner, an author of one of this volume's chapters, and Murray N. Rothbard, an author of two chapters and is profiled in a third chapter. Both established reputations as insightful economists, prolific authors, and—more to the point for present purposes—strong proponents of the Austrian School. They influenced students, not only at their own universities, but at other universities as well, by giving seminars and speaking at conferences, and of course through the impact of their writing. While Austrian economists are still rare in academic institutions, many of those students influenced by Kirzner and Rothbard now hold academic positions, and are in turn influencing a new generation of students." Quoting pages x and xi of the Introduction.
  • Italian scholar Roberta A. Modugno wrote a book in Italian about Rothbard, then she edited and wrote a book in English, titled Rothbard vs. the Philosophers. Modugno says of Rothbard that he wrote a textbook on Austrian economics to be used for university students: Man, Economy, and State. Modugno describes how Rothbard started as an economist and then used his economics background as a springboard to write about liberalism and against social Darwinism, to write critically of Mises and Hayek, all based on economics theory. She says "Rothbard's criticism of Hayek is paradigmatic of the split we find today within the Austrian School of economics between the libertarians who refer back to Locke's version of the idea of right reason that enables an understanding of natural law, and the heirs of the theory, typical of the Austrian School, of a limited, fallible, and evolutionist kind of knowledge." She says Rothbard's 1992 work, The Present State of the Austrian School of Economics was the defining work which described the split.
  • David Gordon (philosopher) said "Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar of extraordinary range, made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He developed and extended the Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises, in whose seminar he was a main participant for many years. He established himself as the principal Austrian theorist in the latter half of the twentieth century and applied Austrian analysis to topics such as the Great Depression of 1929 and the history of American banking." From page 7 of The Essential Rothbard, ISBN 9781610164580
  • Lew Rockwell says that "Rothbard led the renaissance of the Austrian School of economics." Page 442 of Speaking of Liberty, ISBN 9781610163378
  • There's also the obituary / editorial by Block, Hoppe and Salerno, appearing in Rothbard's Review of Austrian Economics in 1995.
  • I should think Gordon's The Essential Rothbard would be extremely useful, more than just the quote above.
  • Srich pointed out the Peter Boettke source The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics which heavily cites Rothbard and discusses him with regard to economics in various chapters such as Prychitko's "Praxeology", High's "Marginal utility", Kirzner's "Value-freedom", Cowen's "Austrian welfare economics", and Ikeda's "Interventionism", among others.
  • Gary North's chapter called "Why Murray Rothbard Will Never Win the Nobel Prize!" is a good source for Rothbard's economics, starting with "Mark Skousen insists that Murray Rothbard ought to win the Nobel Prize in economics. I think so too, but..." This is found within the Rockwell edited book Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, ISBN 9781610163989
  • Jesús Huerta de Soto writes about Rothbard's economics in The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency, ISBN 9780415427692. See especially page 12, the section subtitled "Murray N. Rothbard and the myth of static inefficiency: Roy E. Cordato's attempt at summation". There's also chapter 16: "New light on the prehistory of the theory of banking and the School of Salamanca", crediting Rothbard with tracing the roots of the Austrian School back to 16th century Spain.
  • Karen I. Vaughn writes on page 139 in Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition about Rothbard's "instrumental" role in founding the LvMI the Review of Austrian Economics, as well as him serving as the so-called "dean" of a summer economics program at Stanford which he called "Mises University". On page 93 Vaughn begins a subsection titled "Murray Rothbard and the explication of Human Action" which talks about Rothbard's economics, how Rothbard critiqued Mises, some of Rothbard's proofs, including one in which Rothbard shows that a product's cost does not bear on its market price. Etc, etc.
  • Peter G. Klein comments on Vaughn's opinion of Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises and Rothbard, saying that she finds their theories "backward-looking, inconsistent, and often wrong."[2] Klein defends Rothbard as a main contributor to "the theory of the firm"[3] and the economist's role in society.[4]
  • Block and Rockwell's The Free Market Reader describes Rothbard's "rigorous theory of property rights [integrated with] a scientific theory of economics."[5] Rockwell calls Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State a tour de force of cohesive economic thought, formed from basic principles. This is in the chapter titled "Murray N. Rothbard: Giant of Liberty".
  • Gene Callahan's Economics for Real People describe's the great impact of Rothbard's 1956 paper "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics" on interventionist welfare, page 251. On page 296, Callahan talks about Rothbard's emphasis not on market stability but on the interplay of economic forces. On page 318, Callahan discusses how influential was Rothbard's For a New Liberty in giving the Austrian School greater prominence. Callahan says Rothbard wrote many scholarly economics essays, published in Edward Elgar's Economists of the Century.
  • Bruno Leoni praises Rothbard's "sharp and unbiased analysis" of monopolies. Law, Liberty, and the Competitive Market, page 104, ISBN 9781412812405
  • UT Dallas professor Peter Lewin writes about Rothbard's important contributions to the pure time preference theory of interest (PTPT). Lewin says the most influential PTPT theorists are Böhm-Bawerk, Fetter, Mises, and Rothbard (Rothbard wrote about it in 1970.) Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, pages 101–104.
  • Steeletrap said our sources "should be published in mainstream journals, not the Mises Institute journals", a set of blinders which I cannot fasten upon my head. Why would one purposely ignore those who are the greatest experts on Rothbard's contributions to economics? It is nonsense to do so. I welcome equally any sources which are from notable economists or sociologists, no matter the connection to LvMI. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I welcome equally any sources which are from notable economists or sociologists, no matter the connection to LvMI.
I would have to disagree with that. Sources not published by one's own foundation would be preferred as more neutral, especially when making claims about a figure's importance. This would be true no matter what topic we were discussing. WP:IRS (emphasis mine):
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
One's own foundation is decidedly not a third-party source. Hey look, there's an essay on it: WP:INDY — goethean 00:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your INDY link describes a situation where the author gains no personal benefit from writing about the topic as an independent source. Show me where Austrian School economists are going to derive personal benefit from unduly praising Rothbard. Also, the INDY essay says that competitors are a negative, non-independent source. For the maverick Austrian School, their competitors are everyone else in economics, so if you accept this stance, the essay has just crossed off every single source. I don't accept that. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That's...an interesting interpretation. Let's just not use sources published by Rothbard's own foundation. — goethean 00:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No, let's use them. You wouldn't hold back from using the Truman Library's research on details of Truman's life, would you? This is all we are doing here, filling in the details. The notability of Rothbard as an economist is established with independent sources, but they are thin on detail. Steeletrap is complaining that nobody has been writing the economist section, so, gee whiz, where should we look for details? Why, there's a veritable who's who of economists writing about Rothbard—a dozen can easily be found, and more. Steeletrap is just as acquainted with the topic as anybody here, probably more so than some, but perhaps the motivation is missing. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If the academic reception of Rothbard's economic ideas was as overwhelming as you claim, then it should be a simple matter to use sources not published by Rothbard's own foundation. As it would be for Harry Truman, to use your own example. — goethean 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you've got seven usable sources: Casey, Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics, de Soto, Vaughn, Leoni, Lewin. Not sure about the obituary. — goethean 21:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The books by Casey and Boettke appear to meet rs, based on the publishers. Rothbard however does not receive any coverage in mainstream economics textbooks. TFD (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
[insert] The listing above seems to suggest that if a source is published through LvMI, that the author cannot be used. Or is the criteria that those works published by LvMI are not to be used? I am unclear. In any event, I did a check on the first wikilinked LvMI name – Ralph Raico. Seems that Raico has been published by George Mason University OCLC 21573481, a Stuttgart publisher, Lucius & Lucius OCLC 52523633, by Liberty Press OCLC 7427364, and some others (mainly audiobook products). So, does Raico qualify as RS or not? – S. Rich (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said before, I don't think that we should be using materials published by Rothbard's own foundation, especially in order to gauge Rothbard's notability in a field. Materials published by established, non-partisan presses (Routledge, Springer, Transaction) by authors who also happened published by LvMI seems fine to me. Of course, it would certainly be better if we could get truly independent opinion from scholars who are not employed by LvMI, but that appears to be very difficult to impossible here, especially if we want material which is positive about Rothbard.
One of the article that I worked on in the past was Ken Wilber. Wilber is a new age writer who wants to be portrayed as an important contemporary philosopher. Wilber's organization is called the Integral Institute. If I could only offer materials published by Integral Institute in order to document Wilber's reception, it would not be considered acceptable to use those materials. I've even had people tell me that using materials published by the University of Chicago Press is not independent enough to use at the Wendy Doniger article, because she works there. So this is not something that I am making up. — goethean 14:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The guidance in WP:RS says "Context matters The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." I read this as requiring a statement-by-statement analysis. Too much of the editing in this (and other) articles is improperly justified by comments like "not-mainstream", "fringe", "cult", "primary source", "SPS", WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ILIKEIT, "non-notable source", "not-independent source", "partisan source", "not significant", "non-expert", etc. And then there is POV-selective editing: we see some people pushing on the WP:POLE simply because they like Rothbard and some pushing simply because they do not. The Ken Wilber, Integral Institute, and Wendy Doniger articles do not seem to have suffered the same editing spams, but each of my quoted editing rationales (fringe, new age, cult, heterodox, etc.) could be splashed about in editing those articles to justify the changes of stuff that they don't like on a personal basis. When we ("we", as in the community of Wikipedia editors) see such editing justifications, we need to consider whether the edit is the result of "careful weighing [in a NPOV manner] to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made...." – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are saying that my opposition to the use of materials published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute to gauge the relative magnitude of Rothbard's contributions to the field of economics is driven by some anti-Rothbard POV of mine, then I would be happy to discuss that thesis of yours in the appropriate forum. In point of fact, I don't think that my edits have shown any POV regarding Rothbard, pro- or anti-. I would be happy to review and respond to any evidence that you are willing to offer at the appropriate venue. However, in the absence of any evidence of POV editing on the part of myself or any other editor to this article, I would ask you to stop making unsupported accusations of POV editing such as your preceding comment. I just explained in what I thuoght was a pretty even-handed and non-polemical way, using examples from other articles, how the use of materials from the LvMI is inappropriate to gauge Rothbard's contributions to the field of economics. I went through each of Binksternet's sources, and found the publisher of each, and the vast majority of them were from the LvMI. This is unacceptable for the reasons that I have explained in detail. However, you are welcome to use the independent sources that I listed above. Please explain why you think that these statements reveal some POV pushing on my part. — goethean 18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Instead of casting aspersions on the motives of your fellow editors, why don't you make a positive case for why you think it is entirely appropriate to use sources published by Rothbard's own foundation to gauge Rothbard's contributions to economics rather than using independent scholars? — goethean 18:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh-No! Please, I was not casting aspersions on any particular editors, least of all you. I tried to characterize my remarks in general terms because these disputes about editing extend beyond the MR article. A variety of editors have engaged in these efforts to improve this article – and others. And the POLE essay reflects the fact that our goal is an improved article. I did not go through all of Binkster's references, but I did point out how Raico has been published in non-LvMI sources. And so I posed the rhetorical question and asked if we were characterizing him (and others) as non-RS simply because the material was published by LvMI. Indeed, even if people in Binkster's list publish solely in LvMI, we still can use the LvMI material provided we do a careful analysis in the context of how the material is used. Regarding motivations, it is no secret that many, many, many WP editors have motivations that may conflict or hinder or hamper or distort or influence (etc) their editing. We see it everywhere. I, too, have my motivations. For example, I'm no fan of "new age" stuff. But I did some edits to the Wilber article, quite minor, which I hope improved it. My edit in the Integral Institute article was to remove a redlinked name. What if I had did an edit summary that said "remove non-notable redlinked name from lunatic fringe group of cult wackos."? (Again, this is a rhetorical question!) Would my motivation be suspect? Yes. Would my edit removing the redlink stand in terms of WP policy and guidance? I hope so. Please, Goethean, you have been most evenhanded. I applaud you for this. And I am sorry because I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)19:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that User:Steeletrap thinks a National Review rant against Rothbard and Rothbards University colleague Hoppe's rave for Rothbard are fine to use on Wikipedia, I don't think he's got much credibility in re: debunking tenured professors as references just because they have some loose affiliation with Mises Institute or LewRockwell.com or anyone else who ever had a loose affiliation with them. But all we have to do is take each and everyone to WP:RSN which surely will find them WP:RS.
I'm still in recovering from vacation mode, but if I can manage not to look at all the WP:OR POV interpretations of primary sources for a few days, I'll finally get together that mass of material sitting on my hard drive (including sources mentioned above). I guess I must be a PhD scholar researcher if I can find so much which others could not. User:Carolmooredc 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between being an expert qualified to judge contributions to economics and an "expert" qualified to judge contributions to anarcho-capitalism and historical revisionism. I have pointed this out to Carolmoore many times, and am disappointed but not surprised that this distinction has eluded her. Steeletrap (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
[Insert: So Hans-Herman Hoppe is an expert on something in your opinion; that point is finally clarified. Of course, I don't think anyone is going to call the National Review opinion piece an "expert piece", just a useable one for the writer's conservative opinion, and even that's debatable, especially if a higher quality source can be used to replace it. And I and others have pointed out many times that tenured professors who write about Rothbard don't lose their expert status because they are affiliated with some institution or publication that he used to be affiliated with or that admires his work. User:Carolmooredc 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carol. Per WP:NPA, please comment on content, not on the contributor.
User:Steeletrap, there's no need to respond to Carol's personal attacks. — goethean 16:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. When biases are so strong they seem to lead to biased interpretation of sources, it is ok to point it out. However, I don't have time to debate ad nauseam, so I just struck it. User:Carolmooredc 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that you want other users to opine about your own credibility while making arguments? I think that we shouild talk about the article instead of who we think has or lacks credibility. — goethean 14:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am stunned and amazed at the reaction to my original post. What exactly is so inflammatory with asking editors to add RS from independent, mainstream, peer-reviewed journals? As for bias against Mises scholars, I explicitly said that "it would be fine to publish a Rothbard co-worker's article if the article were published in a mainstream, reliable journal." If the claims of Rothbard's friends and co-workers (which is who the vast majority of Bink's sources are) that he made major contribution to economics are credible, then these claims would appear in independent, mainstream economic journals. Steeletrap (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your stunned reaction was predictable. You started your post with "My view is that Rothbard is not notable as an economist." Such a view is nonsense; Rothbard's writing as an economist has been cited hundreds if not thousands of times. If you had any desire at all to see the Rothbard economist section expanded, you would have been looking through various economic journals where his ideas have been discussed. Here's an easy one to get you started: "Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard" by Tyler Cowen and Richard Fink in The American Economic Review, 1985. Here's a list of economic journals to help your search. In your search, try setting "Rothbard" next to the name of the journal. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
[Insert] Bink, your remarks are off-topic. This thread is about adding independent RS for Rothbard's contributions to economics, not about whether he is notable as an economist. Thank you for adding the Cowen RS; that is a good start but we need more such RS. Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
[Insert] Bink, this is why I keep reiterating to you that it is important to read articles before citing them. Having read the Cowen article, I know see that you misrepresented it as representing a contribution of Rothbard's to mainstream theory. Instead, the Cowen and Fink article examine and reject an alternative to mainstream equilibrium theory proposed by Rothbard. Steeletrap (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. As long as it is an independent economist discussing Rothbard's ideas, whether they accept, reject, or are apathetic towards Rothbard's ideas, they still represent Rothbard's contribution to economics debate/research and can/should be mentioned in the article. — goethean 18:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
[Insert] Goethean, just to clarify, I fully agree that discussion of Rothbard in an RS is relevant and should be added to the article. I also agree that discussion in an RS represents Rothbard's contribution to the debate.
However, it should be noted that crackpot nonsense such as creationism, AIDS Denial, and Holocaust Denial have also "contributed to the debate" insofar as they have provoked extensive examination and research (to debunk them) in mainstream journals. By "contribution", I mean research or theory that is accepted as correct or sound or at least plausibly so, which Cowen and Fink do not regard Rothbard's equilibrium theory to be. Steeletrap (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
An idea that's immediately rejected is a misfire, not a contribution. MilesMoney (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of the discussions we see (above, etc.) mix WP guidelines. Certainly Rothbard meets general WP notability standards. The next question is what sort of RS is available to document the content of the article. In this regard we can do an RS analysis of the statements in context. Whether the RS comes from LvMI or LR.com or other sources, we consider its context in the article. With that in mind, we consider UNDUE/WEIGHT etc. If statements (from whatever source) are used in a promotional or other inappropriate fashion, then we make our modifications. Is Rothbard on a par with Keynes or Hayek in terms of influence in realm of economics? I don't think so. But that does not mean Rothbard is "not notable" in economics or other areas. And we can use LvMI etc. as a source which presents a balanced and informative article for the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
@Srich, that statement entirely begs the question as to which references are RS for the cited content. Moreover you confuse RS of a reference with balanced discussion of the subject within the text of a WP article. Please state specifically what action you propose. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Steele opened this tread as a rather general topic -- the need for useful RS in describing MR as an economist. But such a need applies whether we are describing MR as an economist or anything else. My comment, inserted above [6], cited the policy that says evaluate statements in context because Context matters. And that policy applies everywhere. My specific proposal? In each of our edits we must follow WP guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You're affirming that your remark added nothing to the discussion. If you have specific instrumental proposals, please share them. Your message addressed neither OP nor any of the subsequent discussion. Nobody here disagrees about following WP site policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Srich's comments are right on the money. SPECIFICO, I think it is time you were made aware of this fine bit of humor. Enjoy. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
First step to not being a dick is not calling everyone else one.
What's the actual dispute here? We can't trust Rothbard's institute to tell us how important he is because they're hugely biased. And if we can't find neutral sources saying he's important, then that's that. MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of four person picture

It seems to me of historical interest since it shows a major funder (Blumert who has an article) with Rockwell and Gordon who obviously are relevant to ongoing Mises.org. Of course some might see this as a "guilt by association" picture of Rothbard with his "nefarious allies" and if it was captioned to that effect I'd certainly have a problem. I am mystified as to why Specifico wants it out or where previous discussion is. User:Carolmooredc 15:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a lousy illustration. Rothbard looks like a drunken gerbil in this photo, as opposed to his normal handsome self. Most important the photo is too small to see the 4 figures and another editor has repeatedly insisted it not be formatted at, say 360 px so that it would be visible and intelligible. The mobile WP site is no concern because it doesn't use the illustration px sizes. Feel free to increase the size or remove. It's nice clear pic of Llewellyn and Gordon, but it makes Murray look like an old toad, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
some side remarks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here's a handsome young wikicommons photo of him never saw before. Hmm, he looks like my late father, nose and all. User:Carolmooredc 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Given your history of remarks about Zionists and anti-Semitism to editors here, I ask you to delete your characterization of Rothbard's appearance. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
What horseshit. Carol was musing about her father. You are the one who brought up Zionism, antisemitism, and you said Rothbard looked like a "drunken gerbil" and "old toad". There's no reason Carol should strike her remarks.
I think the photo is worth keeping because it shows Rothbard in his element. There's no need to enlarge the photo in the biography because the interested reader can click on it to see the large version. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
[Insert] SPECIFICO was not accusing Carol of anti-semitism. She was however cautioning her from making a remark about Rothbard's nose, given that (as all of us know) prominent noses are a stereotypical characteristic of the appearance of jews. It's not an inherently anti-semitic remark, but SPECIFICO is right to encourage Carol to be cautious about those sort of things given Carol's posting history. Steeletrap (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
[Insert: This is absurd hypersensitivity. Maybe you haven't heard, but members of a lot of ethnicities are characterized by large protruding noses. And as far as I remember my history is comparing Israel-Palestine conflict issues with conflicts on articles you and Steeletrap especially have been editing. Which is relevant to wikipolicy on dealing with WP:Disputes. If I've written something questionable, please share the diffs. Otherwise stop the insinuations based on nitpicking that verges on harassment. User:Carolmooredc 20:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I inherited my father's nose and got a nose job at 19. So I still joke about the Moore nose. Shame on me for a bit of levity! User:Carolmooredc 18:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
. – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about this, it is a particularly absurd accusation because it was Rothbard's articles and talks, around 1979-80, that enlightened me to the problems with Israel's history of land confiscation and human rights violations. Also, I did mention that editing these libertarian articles was becoming as contentious as editing articles where Zionists were trying to push agendas and label those who disagree as antisemites and that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles had one solution: 1rr. Perhaps I mentioned that another solution is blocks for people who throw around false accusations of antisemitism? You'd have to show me the diffs. User:Carolmooredc 18:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
[Insert] You trust Murray Rothbard as an authority on history? Was Harry Barnes cited as his source for the claims regarding Israel? Steeletrap (talk)
[7] Drop it. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
If he did you or steeletrap would have put it in the article by now. User:Carolmooredc 19:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Readers who wish to see a bigger version of the photo can click it, so sizing is not a major issue. (We do not want images that overwhelm the text.) The need or desirability for rhytidectomy may be apparent in the photo, but so what? (People get older and skin sags sooner or later.) The image is helpful in so far that it shows MR "hanging out" with other interesting people. Perhaps Photoshop retouches can make the image nicer. In any event, keep it. – S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The image seems fine to me. It's pretty sharp for a relatively small photo. I think some of you folks are using other issues like this one as proxies to fight over an underlying ideological conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's just a lousy photo. It's poor quality illustration. It should be replaced. There must be some standard here. The mustard blob one was even worse. We can't just throw up random snapshots because somebody chose to upload them. Just as with any other content, it should be competent and effective and worthy of publication. Please do not disparage the motivations of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Questioning the photo is perfectly appropriate, and I do not question the motives of anyone engaged in appropriate behavior. But when a discussion of a photo quickly degenerates into a discussion of antisemitism, then it's clear there are some underlying problems. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

New Section Needed -- Financial backers and institutional affiliations

I think there should be a section added to cover the distinct subject of Rothbard's loss of financial support from the Kochs/Cato and his jockeying for new backers and a new affiliation which led to the formation of the Mises Institute. There is a good deal of information available, much of it online, some of it in books such as Allan Lichtman's White Protestant Nation and others which exist only in print. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) I'm trying to focus on my own initiatives for radical decentralist libertarian change. However, I think the excellent work to improve feminism articles - see here - through the Wikipedia:Education program would be a great way to bring more libertarian and Austrian economics profs and students capable of following policy, especially NPOV, to some of these sadly distorted articles to clean them up. And of course doing it in a manner consistent with Wikiprocess and the education project. Maybe I'll make that the focus of my Wiki activities, beside keeping a few of the less controversial articles I watch from going off track... Meanwhile, unwatching page again until report for whomsoever the serious deviations from policy I see. Especially WP:Attack page. User:Carolmooredc

Matt Zwolinski on Rothbard, and the bleedingheartlibertarians website

I have twice deleted a few sentences based on observations made by Associate Professor Matt Zwolinski of the University of Sand Diego's Philosophy Department. Zwolinski is not notable in Wikipedia's terms (he has no biography written), and he is not a prominent author on the subject of Rothbard. Thus he does not deserve to be named explicitly as if he were important to the topic. Zwolinski's two cites are as follows:

The Bleeding Heart Libertarians website says it is a blog. I see no reason why a blog which does not satisfy WP:NEWSBLOG should be used as a reference here. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Ethics" section now has a hatnote for The Ethics of Liberty. (If Rothbard has discussed ethics in other books, they might be added to the hatnote.) In as much as Zwolinski is commenting on the book, and his expertise is in philosophy, his comments ought to be in the book article. In this article the inclusion is WP:UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
So, are you rejecting user Binksternet's arguments against MZ and the cited source?
No. Context matters. With that in mind, I am supplementing Binksternet's argument. I think/speculate a better explanation of MR's views on ethics can be discussed in The Ethics of Liberty. – S. Rich (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not what you said. Binksternet is denying that the cited reference is RS. You are stating that it should be used in another WP article to cite the same content. An "all of the above" posture is not convincing re: WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, the guidance is WP:RS#Context matters. As this article is a biography, I think Zwolinski's views about The Ethics of Liberty would fit better in that article. RS in one article does not translate to RS in other articles. That's why I said "Context matters." – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
That fallacy is also covered in the links which I asked you to read. You are misrepresenting user Binksternet's arguments, which is not civil either to him or to those who read or post in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I am arguing that here at the Rothbard biography the BHL blog should not be used, that it is not reliable for analysis of Rothbard's career because the blog author is not an acknowledged expert. I am not concerned about other uses of the blog, at other articles, especially if local consensus can be reached among involved editors. The biggest problem with all blogs and self-published sources is the writer: is s/he widely known as a topic expert? Here we are examining whether Zwolinski is prominent enough for us (and our readers) to care about what he says on the topic, and whether he is known as a Rothbard expert. I say that Zwolinski's minor status on the topic of Rothbard puts him at a disadvantage as the author of the blog entry about Rothbard. Wikipedia expects that a blog writer should be an acknowledged expert on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, I've already pointed out to you that MZ is not commenting on Rothbard's life or career but on a specific work of philosophy (MZ's area of professional expertise) by Rothbard. Editors who read your posts here are likely to wonder why you repeat yourself without either acknowledging what I've just repeated or stating why you disagree with what I've stated. Incidentally, by the standard you propose, "acknowledged expert..." we'd have to remove most of the content relating to the views of the neo-Austrian and Mises Institute Fellows. I don't advocate that. When we're trying to write a full and balanced article about a fringe figure such as Rothbard, I am pleased to find acknowledged academics who have taken the time and trouble to read the subjects' work. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Any time you say that Rothbard is fringe (and it has been several times now) it makes me disbelieve you all the more. If you truly believed he was fringe you would nominate this article for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
[inserted] Binksternet, what WP policy says that fringe theories and theorists do not deserve WP articles? I'll be interested to learn about it. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


This seems like too much weight to give to a very minor source, especially when there is ample written material about the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel. I have been able to find very little discussion of Rothbard's major works except from his colleagues at Mises Institute and Fellows there after Rothbard's death. With a paucity of mainstream independent discussion of Rothbards views and theories, various editors have pointed out that we should not be quick to reject any such source. If you could point us to a trove of independent critical discussion of Rothbard's work, that would be much appreciated. If not, I urge caution in rejecting a bona fide discussion of Rothbard's philosophical work. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
[8] [9] Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Gamaliel, those are two of the sort of weak sources to which I refer. Are you familiar with the authors and their work and affiliations? If you have articles from mainstream academic journals or books from scholarly publishers, those would be what we need. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay apparently I underestimated the Mises circlejerk. Even the guy who wrote the book from a mainstream, major academic publisher is a Mises fellow. However, regardless of the paucity of available sources, we should not elevate a very minor source in this manner. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That goes without saying, but Callahan is a well-regarded academic and this is his field of expertise. There's been some interesting discussion about how to treat these closed-loop "scholarly" communities while remaining true to RS policy. An experienced user, Stalwart, has posted to a previous thread on the subject, I think on RSN. Thanks for your thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you say that with With a lack of mainstream independent discussion of Rothbards views and theories, various editors have suggested using weaker sources. In my view, if good sources do not exist then we should report less. That Zwolinski is an expert means that we can accept the facts he presents as reliable but it does not help us in determining what weight if any to assign his views. TFD (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I know you to be a knowledgeable and thoughtful contributor here. Where have I stated that we should use "weaker sources"? I believe that either on this page or a related thread I emphasized that is not my view. I stated that Prof. Zwolinski is an acknowledged scholar in this area and a qualified academic commentator. I stated that not everyone whose work is used as an inline citation need have a WP article about them. Do you disagree with me on that, or do you disagree with user Binksternet's assertion to that effect at the beginning of this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ethics of Liberty

Our article has discussion about The Ethics of Liberty scattered about in different sections. While a See main hatnote refers to the main article, that piece is a 4,202 byte stub. This article is 75,668 bytes. In accordance with WP:SIZERULE, the Ethics stuff can be (and should be) placed in the book article. – S. Rich (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in principle with moving some of the details out but summarizing here. However, a whitewashed summary would turn this into a criticism fork. MilesMoney (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course the expansion of Ethics would comply with NPOV. As would the WP:SUMMARY in this article. WP:SPINOFF describes what is acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
And, presently, we have a hodgepodge in Murray Rothbard#Ethics. It starts off by saying MR adopted Mises's deductive method, but that Mises did not employ ethical arguments. Then talks about self-ownership, but does not tie this into ethics, except WRT Zwolinski said. Next it talks about Rand, but does not tie the subject into ethics. Praxelolgy comes up, again without a tie-in to ethics. And at the end it comes back to Locke, again without tying in ethics. This rendition is not exhaustive or detailed, but is meant to roughly illustrate how the present text fails to give much meaningful summary of what MR thinks about ethics. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)23:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Srich, you may be venturing outside your area of competence on this material. It's not helpful to call this section a "hodgepodge". Like every other section of WP it will eventually be improved but the current text is a good coherent discussion of many of the most important aspects of Rothbard's thought in this area and you should not denigrate the parts which you do not understand, for example the appropriateness of the Locke mention at the end. That sentence may be expanded or removed in some future version, but it's not a "hodgepodge". SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps because I am not an "expert" I have a greater qualification to assess this material. E.g., is it a readable summary that serves to educate the average reader? Accordingly, I opened this discussion, which has started off by suggesting that Ethics of Liberty could or should be better summarized in the other article is geared towards improving the article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. The less you understand the material, the more of a mess you'd make trying to "fix" it. Good thing you'll never have the chance. MilesMoney (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

== The show goes on. ==

Binksternet is embarrassed by this description of his tag-team edit-warring, so he keeps violating the rules by deleting it. Too bad nothing ever really gets deleted on Wikipedia. But what's really too bad is that the show goes on. Bink tagged Rich and now the latter is edit-warring to keep those photos out. It's hilarious to watch the lengths these two will go to violate Wikipedia policy. Let's see if Bink tries to delete this, too. It would be fun to watch him incriminate himself by doing so. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC) --Technopat (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Church of Darwinism?

How does this: In the course of defending Ron Paul from Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Paul's "evolution denial," Rothbard's longtime friend and confidante Lew Rockwell noted that, like Paul, Rothbard "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism". become "skepticism of evolution"? 1. Worst of all, the "doubts" about the "official church of Darwinism" becomes skepticism about evolution. How? Seems that Rockwell was actually talking more about how certain people (groups or whatever) accepted Darwinism as a "faith" rather than skepticism of evolution itself. 2. Where do we get Andrew Sullivan? The letter to the editor of The Atlantic is simply an unidentified reader. 3. The Rockwell comment is more of a blog entry involving Ron Paul. 4. Why do we see that Rockwell was the long time friend and confidant at that particular point? Besides the OR aspects of this entry, we have a problem with RS. That is, the material (Rockwell's quote) does not directly support the idea that Rothbard was a skeptic of evolution as required by WP:RS#Context matters. And even if Rothbard was a skeptic of evolution, 5. how can this be encyclopedic? Did he tout his skepticism in some fashion where it was significant? He was a political theorist & economist. Such a personal belief, mentioned in an incidental fashion, is not worth keeping. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, but Rothbard's view is documented and cited by Rockwell. Notable and well-sourced for this context. SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we go with our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter what some random economist thinks of evolution? If the only source for this view is the blog of a friend, this, aside from the RS issues, demonstrates that this matter is not important enough to mention in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rockwell was not speaking merely as a friend, he was Rothbard's longtime collaborator in their libertarian program and the co-founder of the Institute where Rothbard was the intellectual leader. They started each day with a lengthy phone conversation. By random economist do you mean Rothbard? If so, where else would we present Rothbard's views if not in the article about him?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
This article should present Rothbard's notable views. The lack of significant coverage regarding Rothbard's views on evolution demonstrates that they are not notable. This is like covering Cameron Diaz's views on string theory. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Rockwell's comments count as significant coverage, and the fact is itself notable. MilesMoney (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
One blog post is "significant coverage"? Gamaliel (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If it's Rockwell, yes. MilesMoney (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
@Gamaliel Not only does Rockwell's choice to discuss these views attest to their notability. The anti-evolution view is one component of Rothbard's and Rockwell's "paleo-libertarian" strategy to assemble a coalition of demographic and ideological groups which would support the Mises Institute and Rothbard's political/ideological agenda. The silly comparison to Cameron Diaz ignores the context of the cited fact -- both in Rothbard's thought system and in his political/institutional strategy. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It's simply amazing to me how the earlier kerfuffle against "walled garden" sources is thrown out the window when one of Rothbard's close colleagues says something juicy that can be used against him. If this Rockwell source is accepted, then every single thing from the LvMI can be brought to this article, including all the positive viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
As you should understand, content and context determine whether a publication/author is RS for a given assertion in article text. Your generalization has no basis in policy. SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Pretend I'm a reader who is new to the subject. Explain what context we have here which makes Rockwell's opinion significant. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Simply because a source says something is not justification for including it in an article. WP:ISNOT demonstrates amply that such is not the case. MilesMoney says "If it's Rockwell, yes." Simply because it's about Rockwell? Is this description which vaguely describes his views about a non-economics/non-political theory issue really notable? Well, if so, then POV seems to be the motivation for such inclusion. I urge editors to take a wider look at the article as one of many in WP. Gamaliel's comments are right on in this respect. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Srich, I've just explained above why it is a political/theory issue. You should strike your PA on Miles above and remember to WP:AGF in the future. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
One: The 8 words "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism" are a NPOV & BALANCED exposition/description of Rothbard's political theories about evolution? Two: MilesMoney's statement "If it's Rockwell, yes." speaks for itself. MilesMoney can explain it further if desired. I'm sure the community would like to know what is meant. I certainly would. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Rich, Rockwell's quote speaks for itself. Why on earth is it non-neutral to quote him fully and accurately?
Gamaliel, I can't understand why the mention of Rothbard's views by an independent RS (Rockwell) isn't sufficient justification to cite those views. Rothbard was not just an economist but a broad political and social theorist, who attacked established opinion in a host of fields. His opinions of science, including his conspiracy theories regarding, for instance, fluoride, are therefore notable. Steeletrap (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Steeletrap (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Because it's a passing, second-hand reference in a small blog entry. We should only discuss his views that are significant, as determined by significant secondary source coverage, and not things we think are significant. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That's original research, as your source makes no explicit connection to this agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why MLK should be listed under thinkers Rothbard "opposed"

Rothbard said that contempt for King, whom he demeaned as a "fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style", (see the wiki page for the full quote) should be a "litmus test" for paleo-libertarians. Wrote Rothbard, "Indeed, amidst all the talk in recent years about "litmus tests," it seems to me that there is one excellent litmus test which can set up a clear dividing line between genuine conservatives and neoconservatives, and between paleolibertarians and what we can now call "left-libertarians." And that test is where one stands on "Doctor" King." (1) Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the whole "opposed" parameter in the infobox is being misused. Rothbard's polemics touched a lot of subjects, and people involved with the different subjects. We should not list them simply because he had some negative commentary on them. "Opposed" implies that an on-going tug-o-war had taken place where one side opposed the other. With that in mind, we have Adam Smith improperly included. (E.g., did Smith oppose Rothbard?) Imagine Rothbard had positive commentary about Smith. Would he be influenced by Smith and opposed to Smith? Unless we can have some text which provides a balanced discussion as to how & why opposition existed, we should leave this blank. Finally, please note there was some discussion at Template talk:Infobox economist#Opposed about this parameter. The discussion did not reach a definite conclusion, but the last editor to comment indicated an intention to remove the parameter. (This was not carried out.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
""Opposed" implies that an on-going tug-o-war had taken place where one side opposed the other." -- Srich, please consult an English language dictionary and check your usage. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Having the article say that Rothbard opposed MLK should be uncontroversial. Seems to be a clear and well-sourced fact. — goethean 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we have a clear edit on what Rothbard said about King. The article text reads:

Rothbard again wrote fondly of Malcolm X in 1993, stating that, in contrast to the "fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style, “Dr.” King", Malcolm X "acted white" through use of his intellect and wit. But while he compared Malcolm X's black nationalism favorably to King's integrationism, he ultimately rejected the vision of a "separate black nation", stating "does anyone really believe that ... New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive “foreign aid” from the U.S.A.?"[71]

Part of the problem is loose use of quote marks (double and single). Looking at the source cited (footnote 71) I see the mention of "'foreign aid' from the U.S.A.?" comes before the other material, among other problematic edits.

The actual paragraph about foreign aid says:

A second, and more plausible, form of black nationalism is for a separate black nation in currently existing black areas: a New Africa comprised of Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Detroit, Watts, et al. with its capital the old Washington, D.C., and President Jesse Jackson sitting in the Black House. But then more problems arise. Apart from all the problems of enclaves and access, does anyone really believe that this New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive “foreign aid” from the U.S.A., and strictly limited migration between the two nations? In a pig’s eye.

The paragraph with remarks about King's intelligence and wit reads:

In the last analysis, then, it is not Malcolm’s ideas, militant or not, nationalist or not, that continue to fascinate, and to attract followers. Not at all. On the contrary, it was Malcolm as a person who was the great attraction when alive and still is, thirty years after his death. For Malcolm was indeed unique among black leadership, past and present. He did no shuckin’ and jivin’, he was not a clown like “the Rev.” Al Sharpton, he was not moronic like Ben Hooks or Thurgood Marshall, he did not simply threaten Whitey in a loutish manner like the Black Panthers, he was not a fraudulent intellectual with a rococo Black Baptist minister style, like “Dr.” King. He stood out like a noble eagle among his confreres. He carried himself with great pride and dignity; his speaking style was incisive and sparkled with intelligence and sardonic wit. In short, his attraction for blacks was and is that he acted white. It is a ridiculous liberal clich that blacks are just like whites but with a different skin color; but in Malcolm’s case, regardless of his formal ideology, it really seemed to be true.

The paragraph about Malcolm X's intelligence and wit reads:

I had the privilege of seeing Malcolm speak on two occasions in the year before his death. It was a delightful experience. His answers to questions were a match for any political leader, for intelligence and wit....

For the moment I'll let editors draw their own conclusions. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Two more comments: First, I see that King is no longer in the infobox. Second, to be clear, there are other portions of the paragraph that are more direct as to what Rothbard thought about King. This was selected because of the disjointed quoting that exists. The Raimondo An Enemy of the State citation is tagged page needed. If we can get cleaner & more specific quotes for verification, the problems may be resolved. 20:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles should be written based on reliable secondary sources and the extensive use of original writings makes the article biased. For any writer, there is material they wrote that puts them in a poor light, but how important it is should be left to their biographers. TFD (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The point is that Rothbard saw himself in opposition to the policies of MLK. — goethean 00:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You need to explain why this is significant which requires secondary sourcing. Rothbard opposed many political figures, which is why he set up a third party in the first place, and found people to oppose there too. A list of people he opposed could fill pages. TFD (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
He explicitly referred to opposition to King as a "litmus test" for his school of (paleo) libertarianism. That's staunch opposition. Steeletrap (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That may be, but it is beyond our role to read through primary sources and make that type of call. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." (WP:PRIMARY) TFD (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a nonsensical policy. All reading involves interpretation. — goethean 17:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you are saying the WP policy is nonsense. It is what it is. To provide more quotes from PRIMARY, we see "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." and "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." But look at how the policy is not being followed in Murray Rothbard#Race.2C civil rights.2C and .22racialist science.22. We have one secondary source cited who talks about what Rothbard said about Malcolm X & MLK.

Rothbard considered black separatist Malcolm X to be a "great black leader” and integrationist Martin Luther King to be favored by whites because he “was the major restraining force on the developing Negro revolution."[3][page needed]

This single SECONDARY sentence has 3 PRIMARY citations surrounding it. And from this one paragraph we have the section heading that says (in effect) "These are Rothbard's views on race." But are these primary sourced "referenced to a secondary source"? No, they are not. Does Raimondo tell us anything more than what MR thought about race? No, he does not. There is certainly reading involved, and that reading involves interpretation, and when we do our interpretation we must do so in accordance with WP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich Despite the fact that this policy has been explained to you on at least a dozen recent occasions, you continue to mis-cite and mis-state it selectively on various article and project talk pages. We are not allowed to interpret primary sources such as Rothbard's singed US Draft Card, found in the garbage and photographed by a tabloid reporter. We are not allowed to use that primary document to support a claim in WP's voice that Rothbard was a draft protester. But this is not such a "primary source". This is a statement by Rothbard which gives his own opinion. That is a primary source WP:ABOUTSELF and you have cited a policy which does not refer to such sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Specifico, you are wrong. The overall policy about interpreting primary sources applies – and the paragraph about "Race" does not follow policy. (Moreover, I have quoted/stated the policy exactly.) ABOUTSELF is violated in the cited passages because Rothbard has commented about 3rd parties, living and dead. The cited passages say absolutely nothing about Rothbard himself. They are cherry-picked and involve a smidgen of the many subjects (non-Rothbard himself subjects) that Rothbard talked about. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
While you're doing your research, I'm sure you've seen this diagram: [10]. Well, you're in the pink! You cite the wrong policy, but you don't listen when various editors explain that to you. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Rich, I'm reading these policies for the first time, and I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Maybe you're reading more into them than what's there. MilesMoney (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's look at the statements above:
  • Steeletrap quotes "fraudulent intellectual ..." and "...litmus test...." Where do those quotes come from? Primary sources. And who has interpreted that Rothbard's views are paleo-libertarian? Who says this means Rothbard had "contempt" for King? Who says MR was "staunchly opposed' to MLK? What are the secondary sources that support these interpretations?
  • goethean says Rothbard opposed MLK and was opposed to the policies of MLK. Where does that information come from? I gather from primary sources. While "opposition" to King and/or King's policies may be true, secondary sources are needed to support such interpretations.
If Raimondo was the source for these interpretations, then we could use Raimondo. But picking out portions of Rockwell's own PRIMARY writings does not follow policy. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Accurate summarization is not original research, and the subject talking about themselves is an exception to some of the constraints on using primary sources. Look at the original paragraph:
Indeed, amidst all the talk in recent years about "litmus tests," it seems to me that there is one excellent litmus test which can set up a clear dividing line between genuine conservatives and neoconservatives, and between paleolibertarians and what we can now call "left-libertarians." And that test is where one stands on "Doctor" King. And indeed, it should come as no surprise that, as we shall see, there has been an increasing coming together, almost a fusion, of neocons and left-libertarians. In fact, there is now little to distinguish them.
Is the article accurately summarizing this? If yes, then there's little more to discuss. If no, then make a few small changes to increase accuracy. Those are your options. MilesMoney (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The Rothbard passage(s) 'quoted' in different places are not ones in which Rothbard is talking about himself. (Can you please provide a citation to the passage you quote above?) If we "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate" the material, we are violating policy. What kind of summary of Rothbard's writing is being presented? A synthesis (not in the WP:SYN sense, but an interpretive claim or analysis) of what he wrote. So even if the summary is accurate, we are violating PRIMARY policy because such summaries must be "referenced to a secondary source". – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Does this passage prove that Rothbard was an opponent of King? Was it representative of his writings on King? Did Rothbard's views change over time? Were his views on King significant to his views over-all? Your answers are yes, yes, no, yes. My answer is maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe. Another person might say no, no, yes, no. Fortunately there are biographers who are able to examine everything known about Rothbard and draw conclusions. Then there are social scientists who can examine the reception of their views in academic writing and determine which are most broadly accepted. If those sources present direct quotes from Rothbard in their explanation of his views, then it may be appropriate to quote what reliable secondary sources have found significant. Otherwise the discussion page becomes a forum for discussion of Rothbard's views. TFD (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean like Justin Raimondo? MilesMoney (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The article has 99 footnotes. Rothbard is cited in ± 27 of them. Raimondo has a 10 cites. Another secondary source is Gerald Casey's biography, which is cited 4 times. Policy says "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
So, yes, like Raimondo, then. Glad we agree. MilesMoney (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
And I'm sure you will agree that WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS, WP:GEVAL, WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL) is a policy that must be followed. Problem is, as stated above (and below by SpokAnCap (talk · contribs)), too much the article has lost NPOV. Part of this comes from excessive use of the PRIMARY sources. The justification for this excessive use of primary is a "Rothbard said this and we can see it in the primary source, therefore we are justified in putting it into the article!" Problem is, this is not a valid WP justification. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Your summary of policy is inaccurate, and your notion of neutrality seems unrelated to neutrality. I don't how your... unique viewpoint can contribute productively to the article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Srich, you've been here all this time. Instead of your rote complaints and little punctuation fixes, you could simply add solid RS material to the article. Instead we find you throwing this fruit salad of misinterpreted and misapplied WP policies in all directions, with the occasional insertion of text which turns out to fail verification. You haven't bothered to add content here even while many other editors have taken the time and attention to research the subject and improve the article. I'd also caution you about encouraging "new" editors who arrive with a string of personal attacks and complaints but no improvements to offer. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The policies I have quoted, with 100% accuracy, should be applied here and everywhere. Sadly they are not in this instance. Comments about my contributions to WP over the years have absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. Likewise, personal cautions to me about how I welcome new editors do not help either. (Indeed, the caution denigrated the very first effort that the newbie made!) Rather, these comments only divert this article talk page discussion from its' real purpose, e.g., whether MLK should be listed as an opponent of MR. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why David Duke and Joseph McCarthy should be listed under influences

These were not just political figures Rothbard supported. According to the Reason RS (2), he cited these men as not only influences, but models for paleo-libertarianism As Rothbard's work as political theorist and his contribution of paleo-libertarianism are important parts of his legacy, so too are Duke and McCarthy important influences. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard was a key figure in libertarian politics, and not just in the USA. MilesMoney (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The source in Steeletrap's link does not support such a broad interpretation. We cannot put Duke and McCarthy in the infobox under "influences. The cited source says "Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an 'Outreach to the Rednecks,' which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes." So Duke and McCarthy were only models for an initiative which was to target the disaffected. That initiative, "Outreach to the Rednecks", is not described as important or even whether it was ever launched. If it was not important then we should not be talking about it at all. Or we should find a source that says why it was never launched. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you read the article? Because it sounds like you haven't. The subsequent paragraphs detail the content of the (very much existing) outreach program, and its relationship with the 1988 libertarian presidential ticket. — goethean 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If I pointed to you as a model for how I should behave on Wikipedia, then it would be fair to summarize this as you being an influence upon me. MilesMoney (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The cited source does not say that the "Outreach to the Rednecks" initiative was followed. It says that unnamed efforts were made to get more followers of libertarianism. These unnamed efforts are not tied to Duke or McCarthy as a model. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not true.
The populist outreach program centered on tax reduction, abolition of welfare, elimination of "the entire 'civil rights' structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American," and a police crackdown on "street criminals." "Cops must be unleashed," Rothbard wrote, "and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error." While they're at it, they should "clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" To seal the deal with social conservatives, Rothbard urged a federalist compromise in their direction on "pornography, prostitution, or abortion." And because grassroots organizing is "plodding and boring," this new paleo coalition would need to be kick-started by "high-level, preferably presidential, political campaigns."
The program clearly existed. — goethean 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Binksternet. Rothbard planned to copy their tactics, not their policies, although the coalition would promote some of the same policies they did. Also, he would have been aware that McCarthy and Duke did not invent right-wing populism, but that it had deep roots in U.S. history. Goethean is correct though that the tactic was followed by supporting Buchanan in 1992. TFD (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Wait...Rothbard adopted McCarthy's and Duke's tactics, but was not influenced by them? Does that make sense? — goethean 18:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope, not one bit. TFD just admitted that Rothbard was influenced by Duke's populist tactics and would support some of the same policies. I don't see how they can say that and then end up agreeing with Bink. MilesMoney (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Because McCarthy and Duke did not invent those tactics, they can be traced back to Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. McCarthy and Duke were merely two recent examples with which readers would be familiar. Odd he did not mention George Wallace. Rothbard's reference to right-wing populism makes it clear he was aware that it did not begin with McCarthy and Duke. In fact it has continued with Pat Robertson, Ross Perot and the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If I say I'm influenced by Ayn Rand's libertarianism, would it be a counter-argument for you to say that she didn't invent libertarianism or that it continued to develop even after her death? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your reasoning. Please don't take it as a personal attack; I'm genuinely puzzled and confused. MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The influences that are relevant for the infobox will be the typical academic influence, not everything or everyone the subject has ever been influenced by. David Duke and Joe McCarthy are clearly not relevant in this context. Iselilja (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That would only make sense if Rothbard's notability were limited to economics, not politics. MilesMoney (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why the people listed should be limited what those which are deemed by some to be "typical academic influence". The Nietzsche article, for example, has Richard Wagner listed as an influence. Is that "typical academic influence"? — goethean 20:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to Rothbard's January 1992 article. He does not say that Duke and McCarthy were influences but says they were right-wing populists. (He is btw referring to Duke's campaign in Louisiana, not his earlier leadership of the Klan.) And the lesson he learns from them is that the establishment opposes right-wing populism. Also, we should not be using opinion pieces as sources for facts, per "reliable sources". TFD (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard basically endorses Duke's entire political program, by saying that there is "nothing" in it paleo-libertarians cannot support. He specifically notes that Duke's call for 'equal rights for whites' is something paleo-libertarians should support. It is a full-throated embrace of Duke's substance, not just his style. Read the part on Duke on Rothbard's wiki page and the cited articles. Steeletrap (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
He said, "It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleo-conservatives or paleo-libertarians....And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. Indeed even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point." That does not mean that he recommends adopting Duke's program - Duke adopted his program. Rothbard enumerated Duke's program as "lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites...." Can you tell me which of these views Rothbard did not already hold, but adopted due to Duke's influence? TFD (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Rothbard adopted Duke's populist tactics. MilesMoney (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No. McCarthy, Duke, and Rothbard all adopted populist tactics, which have been used in America since the early 1600s. Occupy Wall Street also adopted populist tactics ("We are the 99%"), but it does not mean they were influenced by Duke. TFD (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The cited source does not say explicitly that Duke and McCarthy influenced the drive to gather more libertarians from the disaffected among the working class. It would be a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to make that connection. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just protected this for one week due to the ongoing edit warring. (At this rate, all libertarian articles will end up permanently full protected.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

comments unrelated to page protection
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your time in managing the disputes. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Mark, I know you meant that off-hand, please don't say that about all libertarian articles! Through a lot of effort, compromise, accommodation of all strands, self-mediation, and a cadre of good "in the middle" and expert editors, the main libertarian articles are in pretty good shape with respect to conflict. The main article was in flames 3 years ago and many have bled to make this progression. We hope to keep it that way! The libertarian battles seem to be on individual people and organization articles. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you and Phoenix and Winslow have been doing lots of great work. — goethean 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
They have not been active at any of those. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Really? You two were very tight allies until he was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. — goethean 17:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Geoththean, quit the crap. I either agree or disagree with people on specific items. Despite the fact that it seems to me that every time I see you write it is attempting to throw a punch of some kind, if you write something that I agree with I would support it. This time you really missed relevance by two miles. Not only have I not crossed paths with them on this article, I have not even crossed paths with them or agreed with them on ANY libertarian articles. Sort of ad hominem built on to of ad hominem built upon 2 steps removed irrelevance. You are looking pretty silly. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Plus you inhabit the same planet as Rush Limbaugh, so that means that you are a radical right winger.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Right, I am looking silly, which is why you are upset by my insinuation. — goethean 22:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that is good to hear. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Biases

Why is it considered acceptable for Steeletrap and SPECIFICO to edit war by removing NPOV edits, despite the issues of emphasis stated at the top of the page? It is obvious there is no consensus for their biased edits, which have been continually challenged and even resulted in a challenge to the Good Article status of the article? This has also occurred on the Hoppe article. It is obvious from a review of Steeletrap's page that there is a specific bias against Hoppe and Rothbard which obviously influences all of their edits. The denial that those who disagree with them are really "economists" is an especially heinous example of their bias compromising the integrity of the article, and fortunately has since been reversed. But the obsessive emphasis on the late Paleo period is obviously for the purpose of character assassination, and anyone who attempts to remove the attacks on Rothbard which they have inserted throughout the article are all immediately reverted, causing an unnecessary edit war. I propose that the issues they have created throughout the article be removed, and then the article be protected or semi-protected.71.209.221.48 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

From all I can see, they're not biased or edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
What specifically is your concern, OP? If you would specify some content we might be able to take this beyond the realm of personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with this assessment. Steeletrap and SPECIFICO are pretty clearly coming from an anti-Rothbard viewpoint. This article is clearly a distortion of a man's life and work. As to some specific points. Whether or not he was an important figure or made clear important contributions to so called "mainstream" economics is of no consequence to that fact that that he is quite clearly a huge influence and maybe one of the most notable economists in the Austrian tradition. All of the sources from LVMI are valid to this point because they (the institute) are currently the authority in the Austrian school of economics. Duke and McCarthy are barely footnotes in a tradition of old right populism that Rothbard has referenced many times and quite clearly is influenced by. So to say that Rothbard is influenced by Duke and McCarthy because in one article of thousands he agrees with the tactics they employed to get across their message to the "red necks" is a gross distortion. If we were to take such a small agreement with a person to mean that they should be listed among their influences everyone's list would be a mile long. There are probably hundreds of people that were significantly more influential than these two. So this combined with the emphasis on Rothbard's relatively small body of work about anything race related is used to paint a man who was anything but a racist as a minority hating white supremacist. He said some controversial thing about the civil rights movement and Dr. King but that was not his most important contribution or characteristic of the vast majority of his work. Where is the information on power elite analysis, monetary policy, monetary theory, the gold standard, how an anarcho-capitalist society would function, and many other topics he wrote about extensively? Why are the founders of the austrian school such as Carl Menger not on his influence list? What about H.L. Mencken a man he frequently cites as the person who most influenced his writing style and also influenced him on many other ideas. I don't mind having a section on his controversial ideas about race and prominent civil rights leaders, the rights of children, his ideas on abortion, or the treatment of criminal suspects. But these two editors are taking it beyond that level to remove valid information about Rothbard and overemphasize the importance of these idea in the context of his much larger body of work. This is a terrible distortion of Rothbard. The page should be reverted to an earlier version before the edits of SPECIFICO and Steeletrap. If they can add information they think is relevant about Rothbard such as his controversial views and quotes or information from his critics without removing relevant and sourced material they don't happen to agree with then fine. If not I think they should be banned from editing the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.82.54 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

response

1. Please discuss content, not editors. 2. You state, " All of the sources from LVMI are valid to this point because they (the institute) are currently the authority in the Austrian school of economics." I know that there are people who hold this opinion, including some of the editors here, however you should know that there are others -- in fact a plurality, I believe -- who do not believe that vMI is a significant voice or authority in Austrian Economics. Most economists, in my opinion, would state that the economists at George Mason University, Cato Institute, New York University, and elsewhere represent the vital core of current Austrian thought and that the vMI group is marginal at best. 3. Be that as it may, all we can do as editors here is to collate and paraphrase what WP:RS sources say. Rather than attack other editors and their contributions here, please familiarize yourself with WP policy and offer your own contributions consistent with community norms here. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I think that about 95% of 70.189....'s comment is that some are seeking to use an unsuitable and unusual standard to include Duke and McCarthy as influences. (BTW I agree with 70.189 on that). And that going through such a "reach" to include publicly reviled figures as influences might raise some concerns of bias. But your response ignores / does not respond to the 95% and instead is just about finding issues with the other 5%. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct. That's because I have no opinion as to the infobox concerns but I do wish to encourage Ms. 70/71 to work cooperatively and constructively here. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Specifico, I'm discussing content. Specifically the content you and Steeletrap have removed in favor of your own views on Rothbard. I'm not going to list every item because I have neither the time or inclination. But basically up until this summer the article was given a GA and had all valid information. [11] My proposal is to go back to that version and let you and Steeletrap add the information you think is valid and is properly sourced. If you don't agree to this it seems obvious you have an agenda besides creating the best page possible for Rothbard and I would think you shouldn't edit this article because of this bias. I have no problem with you or anyone adding unbiased properly sourced material to the page even if it casts Rothbard in a negative light. He had some very controversial positions that many people would not agree with. But the article above had proper influences and people he influenced along with a good representation of his work. As to your point about who is the authority on Austrian Economics. There is a clear direct line of succession for the ideas from Carl Menger to Eugen Böhm von Bawerk to Ludwig von Mises to Rothbard to the Institute and affiliated scholars. There are definately competing lines though Wieser and Hayek but at the very least every Austrian economist would acknowledge that both lines exist. My point being that no one is saying that Rothbard didn't have an great influence on the Austrian School either to its betterment or detriment depending on which faction you side with. So if you want to talk about the above in the article I don't have a problem but to say that he isn't influencial is simply incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.82.54 (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murray_Rothbard/Archive_5&oldid=1086322032"