Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 15 August 2013

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murray Rothbard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Murray Rothbard has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Contemporary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy Objectivism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murray Rothbard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Philosopher, Journalist

I cannot find any WP:RS that calls Rothbard a philosopher or journalist. On a web search, almost all the results are lewrockwell.com, mises.org, or blog posts. I did find one discussion, by a credentialed philosopher, of why he does not regard Rothbard a competent philosopher. A writer is not a philosopher merely because he may have used the term "philosophy" in its ordinary meaning, or referred to philosophical ideas.

In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy we find other social theorists such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls. We do not find Rothbard, and Hayek, both of whom developed important ideas, but whose work was not formulated with philosophical rigor. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even in Edward Fesser's blog, he says does not deny the status of philosopher, but rather the fact that he dislikes/disagrees with him and his methodology. This transpires in almost every paragraph, for example when he writes: "I have expressed a low opinion of Rothbard as a philosopher", "it concerns the very foundation of Rothbard’s moral and political philosophy", etc.

Furthermore, writing a treatise on philosophy qualifies one to be categorised as being a "philosopher". Even though some criticise him and some do not.

About journalism, I agree, I know he published articles in several newspapers, but I don't know whether it's enough to call him a journalist. -- Fsol (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing on philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. Just as writing on physics doesn't make one a physicist and writing on economics doesn't make one an economist. Can you find a RS that clearly characterizes:::: him as a philosopher? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. One person's opinion does not make a lef description. He did political philosphy of course, but that would need to be specified. He did political polemics,not journalism. Unless you can find a bunch more high quality refs. CarolMooreDC 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing a treatise on philosophy does not make one a philosopher? We should specify this in some way, one cannot just simply ignore the fact that this person had contributions in the field of philosophy, as expressed by an entire treatise on it. Furthermore, as a weak argument, even those who criticise his philosophy still recognise him as a philosopher. -- Fsol (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. If you are correct, it should be possible for you to find WP:RS citations for your statement. Meanwhile, since there has never been consensus to include philosopher and journalist, please undo your reversions. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One ref here;

one sort of ref here, maybe others. CarolMooreDC 10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, each of you, could you point to the specific WP:RS you have found in each case. The search pages show many things, including references to this same article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead problems

I see some edit warring over the lead, but actually those last three sentences are far too detailed on his more radical political statements and that material belongs under ethical and political views section. Frankly, I thought a certain agorist sock was back from the cooler messing with the article, but he may have been a few weeks back.

The lead should summarize whole article not one subsection. This February lead info that was removed also should be moved down to relevant section. Will do when get a chance unless someone else does. (Mea culpa since I think I wrote a lot of it way back when.) Also, I thought there was a lot of material in here from David Gordon's online Bio of Rothbard; anyway, adding some of it, including to lead, might help as well CarolMooreDC🗽 13:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Overstuffed Infobox

The infobox is stuffed fatter than a Christmas goose. Anyone want to slim it down to the most significant entries in each category. We're all influenced by Aquinas. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Really only should mention people ref'd in article already, both for influences and those he influenced. Later could be added as a "legacy" section with refs for each individual, especially living ones. Stigler influenced Rothbard? Kind of thing that also needs a ref because average person with passing knowledge of Rothbard might wonder. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor who wisely changed Murray from Austrian Economist to Anarcho Capitalist did not also make the other change that would necessitate, namely, to use a more general infobox template instead of the "economist" template. That can be done later when the boatload of influences and influenced are pared down to a smaller number of significant ones. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This can't be a serious proposal. You have noticed the four refs calling him one, and that was just from the first page of the internet search.

It would be better to remove it from all the crooked "economists" who are paid big bucks to help corporate and govt fat cats loot the public through the revolving door, whatever "school" they may claim to be from. (As long as we are making up schools of economics, I suggest the "Looters" school ;-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources identify Rothbard first as "Austrian economist"

Despite two editors correcting this issue, two highly biased self-admitted anti-Misean/Rothbard users have put "Anarcho-Capitalism" in the info box. The lead uses high quality sources to describe him as Austrian economist. The infobox should identify him as that. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, 3 different editors have changed the caption to "anarcho-capitalist" not 2. Three. One, two. Three. Let's not get preoccupied with the infobox. The same reference calls Rothbard many names including a "controversialist." The current infobox is a "infobox economist" and would need to be substituted with "infobox person" if we drop the economist label for him. As it stands, the article presents Rothbard as a political theorist and popularizer of various philosophical and historical threads of thought. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The parameters for the economist infobox have a limited number of schools & colors. A/C is not amongst them. So, while the economist infobox may be appropriate, consensus is needed to determine which of the specified/existing infobox colors should be used. If A/C is a school of economics, then perhaps the infobox parameters can be modified (after discussion on that page). If we can't reach consensus on which school of economics is appropriate, then I suggest we switch to {{Infobox scholar}}. – S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Srich, nobody has stated that "anarcho-capitalist" is a school of economics. I've changed to the more general template so that more information can be included without putting a 'school of economics' above Murrays portrait. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Two editors who have ridiculed Rothbard changed it. Who was the third one and what reason did they give?

The issue of anarcho-capitalism being a school has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Anarcho-capitalism_is_now_a_school_of_economics.3F.3F and debunked. I mentioned that again today in case someone wants to come here and explain it to the editor or editors who support this change. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Economist infobox

At this edit User:SPECIFICO removed the economist info box. I reverted it per long time consensus, refs, talk page objections. This is just pure destructive edit warring. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I restored the economist infobox. Rothbard's career is described as that of an economist in multiple sources. Rothbard was chief of the journal Review of Austrian Economics. See his death announcement here. The infobox must remain, and must read "Austrian School". Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I restored the economist infobox. Rothbard was primarily an economist, chief of the Review of Austrian Economics for more than seven years. A very influential economist. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not edit war over this and review the thread in the recent RfC concerning the infobox. I'm going to restore the scholar box, per consensus. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no RfC consensus to move the infobox, only to put the word theorist (which currently has no ref) before the phrase "economist of the Austrian school" which has seven refs. And two editors making such a decision is hardly a consensus. And I think visits from other editors the other day who have dealt with questionable edits and proposals about editing make it clear that this is not acceptable. The editors who remove this are edit warring by imposing this on the article. If they would stop it I could finally do that research I promised to do just a few hours before the RfC was started by the person who encouraged me to do the research. User:Carolmooredc 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard (Franco comparison)

Hi. You may be more familiar than I with the context, but Murray says he supported Francisco Franco as a kid. Sounds like statist right to me. Your addition may not be in keeping with the source. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

First, what does he actually write? In one family gathering featuring endless pledges of devotion to "Loyalist" Spain during the Civil War, I piped up, at the age of eleven or twelve, "What's wrong with Franco, anyway?" It didn't seem to me that Franco's sins, however statist, were any worse, to put it mildly, than those of the Republicans.

His point was less to support Franco but to point out that statist republicans did many of the same things. Pretty smart for a kid, even if he may have had his facts wrong, but do we really need to detail it here? CarolMooreDC🗽 16:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say we need to detail it, just not to contradict it. I'm not sure the text implied he was a statist, only that he called himself a right-winger. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-read the article. First ten paragraphs talk about the "old right" so when he says "right-winger" that's what he means. But the average reader might interpret in any number of ways so the appropriate thing is to define which one he means.

If you look at both paragraphs proceeding the Franco illusion, it seems it's just as or even more important to mention he grew up an anti-Zionist:

'My father emigrated to the United States from a Polish shetl in 1910, impoverished and knowing not a word of English. Like most immigrants of that era, he had resolved "to become an American" in every sense. And that meant, for him, not only learning English and making it his language, but also abandoning Yiddish papers and culture and purging himself of any foreign accent. It also meant devotion to the basic American Way: minimal government, belief in and respect for free enterprise and private property, and a determination to rise by one's own merits and not via government privilege or handout. Russian and Polish Jews before World War I were swept with communist, socialist, and Zionist ideologies and movements, or blends of the three. But my father never fell for any of them. An individualist rather than a socialist or tribalist, he believed his loyalty was to America rather than to Zionism or to any Zionist entity in the Middle East.

I grew up in the same spirit. All socialism seemed to me monstrously coercive and abhorrent. In one family gathering featuring endless pledges of devotion to "Loyalist" Spain during the Civil War, I piped up, at the age of eleven or twelve, "What's wrong with Franco, anyway?" It didn't seem to me that Franco's sins, however statist, were any worse, to put it mildly, than those of the Republicans. My query was a conversation-stopper, all right, but I never received an answer.

Another jobbie for me for the article. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I think that your addition added your own commentary to Murray's quote. Maybe others will offer their reactions. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a clarification to avoid what otherwise looks like a POV attempt to misinterpret the source. If no one else pops up, we can take it to WP:NPOVN. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I understand your intent. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems with 6/1/13 edits

• This diff Why remove Rothbard Austrian School description from info box and replace it with "Anarcho-Capitalist" school? Is there such a school of economics? Moreover at that diff and at this diff user uses Murray Rothbard, Society without a State, talk delivered at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), December 28, 1974 to source the above and another claim about anarcho-capitalism but Rothbard doesn't even mention "anarchist-capitalism" - or capitalism!
• Here editor just deleted summary of Miller, David, ed. (1991). Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-17944-5. claiming WP:OR without tagging it with or It's not available to link from books google; it can be found on amazon, but not linkable. I will put in the full 2 or 3 sentence quote and put it back. Please use tags like I do even when your source fails verification. This is the second time I've asked you and then I had to put the material back. (Now it might or might not be undue for that lead paragraph but that's another discussion.)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Murray_Rothbard&diff=557906396&oldid=557905961 Removed fact he also has referred to free market anarchism). Sure it needs another source (or maybe an argument could be made for a couple primary sources), but again the point is if not edit warring you should put a tag asking for sources not delete it.
• Here there's a ref I could not find a copy of or link to. So I put on McVicar, rather than delete it so we can verify it really says that and not have to remove it.
• At this diff removal of mention of one of several publications Rothbard started. User says the article's too long for it?!?! With all the academics out there who dream of starting just one journal that anyone will read?? Please explain...
• At this diff add a Hoppe source after complaining too many Misean-Rothbard fan related refs?? Seems a bit questionable, at least til all the most dubious ones removed. Will look at it after do so.
• Richman as source Well, we can take it to WP:RSN if it seems something that needs to be in the article; don't have an opinion currently. Misplaced Pages is NOT an academic journal and news journalists material often used, though of course Richman more than just a journalist.

So that's it for things that need to be fixed, put back, brought to noticeboards if there's no consensus, etc. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin recommends RfC/WP:RSN

As a result of my Editwarring complaint (that touched on most of the topics in this section]] the Admin made reasonable recommendations regarding an RfC (I assume where Specifico would list what he wants to take out/change) and/or going to WP:RSN (where that is most relevant to some of those issues). That is fine with me. More eyes from more neutral editors is all I've been wanting here to deal with issues. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to tags

• primary sources, additional citations for verification (to replace some of those), sources too closely associated with the subject are all legit critiques I'm working on and hopefully others will to.
• Lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters needs to be explained; obviously I think yet another sentence on David Duke is WP:Undue
• This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. I don't think so. After it's cleaned up on other issues feel free to explain. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OT means what?

At this edit and editor writes deleted OT criticism of Bentham; described contextually relevant portion of Rothbard criticism of util). Now when we use initials in Misplaced Pages we assume they translate into shortcuts like WP:OT, which in this case means Misplaced Pages:Community portal/Opentask which can't be what was meant. Please explain edit. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I take it to mean "Off Topic", which it seems to be. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now know what to look for when check source. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Good secondary sources on Rothbard

For information in the bio or needs to be there. Many already mentioned but need a better overview for replacing the over-abundance of primary sources with secondary ones. For starters, in alpha order by Authors/editor and/or publications. Feel free to add more - CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Gerard Casey book bio Murray Rothbard at books.google.
• Brian Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, has a lot of material
• David Gordon short bio Biography and timeline
• David Gordon book bio, Essential Rothbard (needs link in ref)
• Liberty magazine : search his name and topic and can find lots of things
• Liberty Magazine: Rothbard remembered, PDF p 20-26; long biographical intro and 19 friends and colleagues remember him
• Ludwig Von Mises Institute: Murray N. Rothbard, In Memoriam, Preface by JoAnn Rothbard, edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr, published by Ludwig von Mises Institute,1995.
• Justin Raimondo book bio An Enemy of the State at books.google.
• Reason Magazine: search his name and topic and can find lots of things; (Obituary/ies doubtless exist but didn’t find on line or onsight with quick search)
• David Stout, Obituary: Murray N. Rothbard, Economist And Free-Market Exponent, 68, The New York Times, January 11, 1995.
• Villanova University: Peer reviewed and other articles by or about Rothbard; bunch need to go through
• Specific searches: find material at Highbeam and Questia; search books/scholar/news archive google and topic of interest.

Removing duplicate refs from Bibliographies/Further reading, etc

While usually it's good to remove duplicate material from bibliographies or further reading sections that has been used as a reference, there isn't much guidance on this (or keeping duplicates in) in Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Biographies, Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Bibliographies, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists of works, Misplaced Pages:Further reading, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies. Usually it just gets done by people adding or deleting stuff they like/don't like.

I think in following cases the information should be duplicated:

• An important work that is quoted in the article should not be removed from a bibliography (like Volker memos?)
• A subsection listing of biographies/books about the person is mentioned as being allowable, and I see that has been removed from here. I think it should be there, the only question is whether in bibliography or further reading. (And higher quality other further reading sources should be added.) (I can see a lot of bios where such sections could be added. Yet another project don't have time for.) Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Bibliography article on Rothbard

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies is more about whole articles that are bibliographical. Something that someone could do for Rothbard since he was so prolific. Just an FYI. Ain't a gonna do it my self. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Review?

Given the multiple tags on the article, it is time for a WP:GAR? Posting a review will attract other editors to come in and fix/resolve the tags. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started going through some of the shorter secondary sources above to find material that helps shape what's in the article or present new notable facts/issues/etc. (In between personal stuff and various dust ups from hasty comments on other articles on hot button issues - anarchist grannies on the peace path and all that :-)

I think it would help if a few people interest in the topic in general came by first, cause people not interested might not come for work that means learning a whole lot about people they don't know anything about and having to wade through primary sources.

If you put another note at Libertarianism Wikiproject and mention the tags and need for people interested in the topic to come add secondary sources, clean out some of the primary ones, etc., that would help.

Once it's not so over-whelmed by primary sources it would be ok to do that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Economic Theories

The economics section could use some beefing up. I have removed an erroneous reference to Rothbard's regarding legal tender laws. A properly sourced and clear statement of his statements on the subject would be one way to flesh out the section. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It needs secondary sources obviously to comment on his views, what he's most noted for, etc. Big job. I got as far as listing good refs for his bio before got distracted by other things. But it's a work in progress; I've been at least tweaking article and protecting from blatant vandalism for a few years but until tags put on recently not motivated to really wikify it. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, one big problem with this article -- which has caused dispute in the past -- is that it presents MR as a political theorist, ethicist, philosopher, and founder of Anarcho-Capitalism. There is little on his contributions to economics and most of it just echoes Mises, elaborating slightly but not beyond what can be found in Mises. Now, I have not seen any significant original contributions to economics by Rothbard. I view him more as a social thinker. However if he is to be labeled an economist and infoboxed as such rather than as a philosopher and pundit, then we need to develop some RS material that could support that characterization of him. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. Do you have to make original contributions to economics per se to be an economist? Surely not to be an applied economist (say, a strategist), but I'm not aware of Rothbard falling into that category.

But what about just plain apologetics? If he made an original contribution, not to Mises' theory as such, but to the arguments as to why one should accept Mises' theory, would that make him an economist, or perhaps "meta-economist"?

But, in any case, if it is so that Rothbard was not really an economist, then I submit that the right thing to do is to stop presenting him as one, rather than to go looking for ways to justify presenting him as one. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What do secondary sources say? That's the main point. At some point someone with secondary sources can come through and rewrite the whole thing according them, only using material from primary sources here and there to illustrate points. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen Rothbard cited in any mainstream economics article or text. I have seen references to him in a lot of popular literature that refers to his key role in anarcho-capitalism. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So, he has minimum impact in (academic) mainstream economics, but more impact in the popular literature? Such being the case, the areas of impact need to be parsed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So, is anyone up to writing such material? It might be an interesting Ideological Turing Test. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Books.google. Search "Murray Rothbard" and 36,000 books mention him. I'm sure at least 100+ are high quality sources that detail various aspects of his views and life.
• Scholar.google has [4300 returns.
• News.archive Google doesn't give a number but it's ten pages plus, set at 50 returns per page.

And that's not counting all sorts of other databases. So please don't assume that sources do not exist because you have not looked for any. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Google scholar is unlikely to yield even .001 for evidence of original contributions to economics among the web presence of a figure such as Rothbard. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you intend to do any research? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No doubt you meant to say any additional research, as I have already done extensive research on the subject. My conclusion is stated above. If others are motivated or able to find secondary RS sources that describe original economic theory from Rothbard, that would be great and the economics section can be expanded. For my part I have failed to find any and I view his great contribution to be his seminal contributions to anarcho-capitalism, his launching of right-libertarianism in the USA (on this point I concur with Lew Rockwell, as cited) and his articulate and curmudgeonly controversialism (on this point I agree with Raimondo, as cited.) In order to present him as an economist here we would need RS to describe substantial achievements such that they are commensurate with these more prominent and conspicuous roles. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think others share your unique and exclusionary viewpoint. See Economist: An economist is a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. I also do not see any such exclusionary language in Template:Infobox_economist. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Great. Do your research, gather all the RS you can find and post here to moot your loot. We may yet make him an economist here. Good luck. Looking forward to it. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If I didn't have so many problems with dealing with policies issues in biographies of living persons maybe I'd have time. We're all volunteers here. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC Priority of Rothbard description in lede: Primarily a Political theorist or Primarily an Economist?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Which should go first in the lede characterization of Rothbard, "political theorist" or "economist?" SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Favor political theorist first

• Support political theorist first. Just searched for Murray Rothbard on Encyclopedia Britannica, and he shows up only in the articles about libertarianism. His article in the Encyclopedia of Political Science describes him as "a twentieth-century political economist and social theorist in the modern libertarian tradition." It appears that he is mainly notable for his libertarian political theory, and so that should come first. FurrySings (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support The article text states that Rothbard was the defining figure in the origin of the current anarcho-capitalist and right-libertarian movements. He referred to economic topics to support his social theory. There is no Rothbard writing on economics cited by mainstream economic journals or other scholarly publications. The lede should reflect his main legacy, as a political theorist and promoter of the libertarian movement. The cited RS state that he was eulogized as a political theorist, not an economist. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support His mainstream activity revolves around socio-political agenda. We can't ask what Murray Rothbard would call himself but here is what I gathered. Google string query Murray Rothbard calls himself and I get way WAY more returns on ethics, Libertarians 'Anarchists' and in the top ten results is a video titled 'Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement' so I'm not going to call this guy an economist by any stretch of the imagination. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 21:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I consider his and his colleagues' economics views and their associated professional efforts fringe, and wholly in support of efforts to spread his political views. He self-described as an economist because it lent more credibility to his radical opinions than if he had described himself as a political theorist. However, we should go by how the mainstream secondary sources treat his work today, not how he wanted to be seen. EllenCT (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support It was his main contribution. TFD (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Favor He is virtually unknown for his "contributions" to economics (his "economic" works are, in stark contrast to those of say, Milton Friedman, only read by laypeople who agree with him ideologically, rather than read by real social scientists their empirical/methodological insights) and embraced a method regarded as pseudo-scientific by real social scientists. He is well-known for contributions to fringe political theory. Therefore, political theorist should come first. Steeletrap (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Rothbard is not Friedrich Hayek, who may have had similar views but was an economist. II | (t - c) 04:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Much better known for his contributions to political theory than to economics. There are plenty of sources referring to him as a political theorist and discussing his work in that area. Neljack (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Not sure why this matters, since both should be used, but BLP's generally list occupation by impression per consensus. A subject may be an actor who also sings, but is listed as an actor first because that is the predominant public impression. People are not mittens, with a single occupational match. This subject could as likely be called a pundit and that may fit best. It's not on the list. Forced between the two, I'm !voting theorist.EBY (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Favor economist first

• Support economist because in Misplaced Pages we go by reliable sources which says he was a professional, making a living as, an economist. He taught economics. He did not teach political theory. He wrote about it and had an avocation of political activism based on specific theories, but that's not his "profession." David Boaz of the Cato Institute, at the Cato website in an article that first appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica blog, describes Rothbard as: "a professional economist and also a movement builder". In the footnote of Radicals for Capitalism Rothbard is quoted as calling himself a professional economist. I'm sure lots more high quality sources can be found. We already have four sources calling him an economist and Austrian economist, so more of these can be added. In any case the article is still flawed source-wise, as the three templates at the top of the page indicate, so it will need a lot more development before there's any definitive long-term solution, no matter what short-term one some people might support based on ignoring the plentiful sources that say he was an economist, Austrian and/or professional. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm no expert on him. But I just Googled him, and of the first 25 hits that characterized him (and were not Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages mirrors) 24 of the 25 listed "economist" first. The 25th was not "political theorist" but something similar. (libertarian theorist) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support – The JSTOR search on "Murray Rothbard" comes up with 385 search results. These include The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Southern Economic Journal, Journal of Economic Literature, Economica, The American Economic Review, and the like. (Now whether Rothbard is the subject of these articles, or simply mentioned, is another question.) All in all, the majority of these "hits" is for economics related material. Also, as mentioned, he's had some influence on anarcho-capitalism, which I understand advocates a free-market system with minimun/zero government influence. (Isn't free-marketism an economics idea?) So, is Rothbard using his political philosophy to support his economic views on what works best, or is he using his economic philosophy to support his political views on what works best? If these are two sides of the same coin, then we've got to go with the overall view of him, which I submit is buttressed by the JSTOR search which gives more weight to economics related articles. – S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Adding to my comment, I see him named as influential in the contemporary Austrian school of economics. Source is Peter Boettke at .01:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support economist first. Those in favor of political theorist are citing mostly personal opinions, while those in favor of economist are citing reliable secondary sources. —Tourchiest _edits 13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support – per Srich. The RS describe him as an economist/historian of economics, so we'd need to go along with that. I've read his tome History of Economics from an Austrian Perspective and I think it gives him credit as a historian of the subject, though YMMV. Eisfbnore  13:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Rothbard was schooled in, and made his living teaching economics.OnlySwissMiss (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments: (threaded discussions in response to comments above)

• The projects listed at the talk page have been notified, with the exception of "Columbia Univeristy." SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest immediately rewording. Lumping 3 of the 4 together for consideration as "one" makes the RFC fatally biased and fatally flawed. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Either way, those two should the first/top two. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: To make context clear, the below comment originally was a reply and thread below my "Support" comment above.
  

Charles Ives made his living as an insurance broker (added later 03:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC):)yet his WP article describes him as a composer. How one earns a paycheck is irrelevant here. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources are what counts on Misplaced Pages, not editors' personal opinions and WP:OR. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The WP article Charles Ives says it, not me. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please make comments regarding policy, not articles that may or may not be compliant with policy. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy question here. The sources are all cited in the article and overwhelmingly describe him as a political theorist as I just stated above, RE: eulogies. Please put discussion remarks in the threaded discussion section and indicate specific statements in the article which you feel are OR otherwise the mention of it is pointless. Please move your remarks to discussion section. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I assumed you'd actually looked at the refs. There is just one mention of "political theorist" with one ref that's rather oblique since quote reads: "Since the present volume is one in a series devoted to a consideration of conservative and libertarian thinkers, I am going to focus primarily on Rothbard’s contributions to political theory." CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• To User:Geremy.Hebert: Just a correction: The second reference already in the article includes a quote from Rothbard calling himself a "professional economist". Not to mention all the solid ones that already do. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

well then I guess that puts this conundrum to rest then doesn't it.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 09:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change your entry accordingly if you like :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 13:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• To Tourchiest, Only 10 lines of this article discuss Rothbard's economics. The rest is describing Rothbard the political theorist, author, and political activist. It's not OR that says Political Theorist first. The weight of the Reliable Sources here emphasize his legacy as a political theorist. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I checked what Rothbard's biographer Gerard Casey had to say on the subject. Casey writes "Of all that he did, I think it's fair to say that Rothbard is best known for being a libertarian. Here, his contributions were immense." SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal. Murray is not notable for work as an economist, and (judging from his Misplaced Pages page, which features more discussion of Rothbard's taste in movies than his substantive work as an economist) appears to have made little to no notable contributions to economics. However, he did work as an economist at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and UNLV. Therefore, I propose that we change the box to "anarcho-capitalism" and describe Rothbard as a "political theorist" in the lead sentence. But write in the second sentence that Rothbard made a living teaching economics at UNLV/Brooklyn Polytech throughout his career, had a Ph.D from columbia et al. Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a fair solution which reflects the views expressed in the RfC. It having been open for one month now, I suggest you implement that change unless there is objection from any editor, in which case we can get a formal close to the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but do we continue to use the {{infobox economist}} template? I recommend no, as AC is not one of the parameters for AC coloring and adding one's own choice of color would not be in keeping with template standardization. (At some point, if a color is agreed to for AC colors, the economist template might be restored.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Objection to adding new issue to RfC: SRich's edit summary said this RfC was opened to allow a new issue in. However, this RfC was opened because of objections it was closed by an involved editor - not to allow new issues to be added to the RfC. This objection has been mentioned at the WP:ANI as well. Please allow a neutral editor to finish off this process. Thank you. User:Carolmooredc 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeez! I closed the RfC because it looked like compromise language had been reached. (And I warned about the infobox issue.) Well, the "problematic" closure is now undone. I simply suggested that OP (Specifico) post a subsection because the infobox issue was not part of this original RfC. What are you saying now? "Continue to discuss the lede issue here, but don't address the infobox issue"? Most confusing. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you NOT read the below where editors opine an involved editor (you) closing it is a problem? Why can't you just discuss the issue in the two sections where currently the info box is being discussed - and it would seem the proposal to move away from economist being rejected?? User:Carolmooredc 18:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If I may venture a suggestion as someone not involved in this dispute (particularly since I raised the issue of involved closure in a thread below): Let this RfC be closed by a third party based its original topic. It might be a "no consensus" close or something otherwise unsatisfying, but a clean close will be less confusing and less contentious that trying to revive and re-purpose the old one. The focus of the dispute seems to have moved a bit, so I'd recommend having a bit more non-RfC discussion before starting a new RfC. Then, assuming the regular discussion still leaves hanging issues, put those issues into a new RfC that isn't mixed together with this one. I know that may take longer, but I think it will avoid a lot of potential misunderstandings and contention over process. --RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a {{Moved discussion to}} template in-place, hidden, ready for posting, just below. (I posted it a moment ago and have moved it.) A non-involved editor is welcome to remove the "hidden" Wiki markup so that it will post. (Carol, when I closed the RfC there was no discussion below.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

SRich, I don't know what you are talking about. Are you saying you want to move the objections to adding the infobox discussion or the infobox discussion itself? Do you have no response to User:RL0919's suggestion we just let a third party close this - which is not the first uninvolved editor to say this? Please explain. User:Carolmooredc 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

While waiting for noninvolved editor closure User:Steeletrap has reverted yet another editor's attempt to put economist (which has seven refs) first instead of theorist, which has no refs at all. I've put back my request for a ref for theorist in lead which was removed. Please do not remove it again anyone. User:Carolmooredc 00:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I see that another editor did finally put back the one ref that was there previously for theorist. Steeletrap deleted it here as non-WP:RS, though he later used Raimondo to bolster up another point trying to make. Sigh... User:Carolmooredc 00:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No agreement to remove Seven refs on economist of the Austrian school

While I dropped out of the above discussion, I certainly don't see any agreement to remove all that high quality material which I put back the info and Seven high quality refs at this diff. I also copied blackwell and it does not call him a theorist. Please find a ref for that assertion in the lead sentence. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 05:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Newt Gingrich is not characterized as a "historian", despite teaching history and having a Ph.D, because he is not notable for work as a historian. Rothbard is not notable as an "economist" and should not be described as such in the lede. he is notable as a (fringe) political theorist and activist. Like Newt (for some time) with respect to history, economics is how Murray made a living, and (again like newt) the Ph.D a credential Murray cited to boost his credibility.

The compromise text indicates that Murray had a Ph.D in econ and taught in Brooklyn and Vegas. Mentioning him as an "economist" of the "Austrian school" seems superfluous and subjective. Steeletrap (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the material is of good quality and should appear in the article. Rothbard was a profesor of economics, and notable member of the Austrian School of Economics, eventhough he wrote extensively as a philosopher and as a historian. -- Fsol (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:North8000 put the material back again, after Steeletrap deleted it so he evidently believes it belongs there. I also did a bit more research on his academic credentials and put that in to clarify some factoids. There's lots more out there on his significance as an economist. Just have to do the research. User:Carolmooredc 18:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, I put it back in from a process standpoint. Mass undiscussed deletion of references. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. User:Carolmooredc 18:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Also no agreement to remove economist info box

I put that back too. Removing it was not part of the RfC. The RfC only covered order of mentioning things, and that can be changed if it becomes clear economist was the more notable factor, which just a little bit of research can clarify. (Again, where are the actual references showing him described as a theorist? Sure we can see he was through our own reading, but our own reading is not a reliable source.) Working on this now. User:Carolmooredc 18:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The consensus, endorsed by Srich, Steeletrap, and myself at various times was to replace the infobox economist with a generic infobox. You should undo your re-insertion of the economist infobox, which flouts the consensus reached in the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A few editor haphazardly discussing something is not an agreement And at the above section "Removal_of_Economist_infobox" after your first removal, I did not see any dissent. And that is the only sectioned discussion of it. I doubt that any RfC or NPOVN discussion would support such a drastic move. If you think such a drastic move is necessary, do another RfC.(Hopefully only announced to the most relevant 4 or 5 wikiprojects.) User:Carolmooredc 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the close of the RfC as embodied in the last 3 posts among Srich, Steeletrap and me. Changing the infobox template was discussed repeatedly and confirmed by Srich at the end of the RfC. Thwarting the consensus of a freshly closed RfC is tendentious. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC focused on the question of listing Rothbard first as an economist. As "theorist" was the agreed compromise, changing the infobox to a non-economist template is a natural progression. (WP:IBX has guidance.) Since the consensus is for a non-economist-prominent lede, I recommend against using the econ infobox. Restoring the economist info-box only re-opens the can of worms WRT what school of econ MR is in. E.g., he is prominent as an anarco-capitalist, but AC does not have agreed upon colors in the economist infobox template. Recommend modifying the infobox and use {{infobox scholar}}. (The RfC remained open for 30 days and was well advertised. The discussion was not a haphazard one in the least.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

First, as you know well, RfC's can't override policy and you can't replace info from 7 sources with info with no explicit source saying theorist. Even if you do have a mighty 9 to 6 "vote." So this probably should be taken elsewhere as a policy violating process, just like the Block discussion at WP:BLPN is. But I was so fed up at the time - and probably will soon be again, that I did not do so. I'll go find out where to take it. User:Carolmooredc 19:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "political theorist" is vague enough and broad enough to properly characterize MR. After all, he wrote about a lot of subjects and many, many of them dealt with politics, government, and the like. The reference to the BLPN confuses me. BLP does not apply to MR. What policy is being violated? (Please note that I "voted" for economist.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another reason the RfC was bogus was that it was done a day after we started discussion seriously beefing up the economics section and I said I would. As User:Specifico wrote above "Great. Do your research, gather all the RS you can find and post here to moot your loot. We may yet make him an economist here. Good luck. Looking forward to it." Rather than let the process unfold, Specifico the next day created an RfC to short cut my editing. And you wonder why I got disgusted and left?? I should have reported to him ANI, but how many times a week can one do that?? User:Carolmooredc 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe WP needs "bogus RfC" or "pointless RfC" Noticeboard. Your suggestions for improvement to the RfC would certainly have been welcome. Sorry to see that you are disgusted – I recommend posting the {{User frustrated}} template on your UP or TP. I have, and my goal is to overcome the frustration. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That also was during the same days that User:Specifico posted so many bogus notices on my talk page I had to report her to WP:ANI. So it took me this long to realize how bogus the whole thing was! Plus at the time I did not know you could pull back an RfC as you so helpfully mentioned the other day. User:Carolmooredc 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There has not been an Rfc or development of consensus on this talk page specifically about the infobox, just some suggestions that the economist box be used and some suggestions that another type of infobox be used, either scholar or untitled. To me, it looks like a hatchet job on Rothbard's career to even consider using a different infobox than the economist one, stating plainly that Rothbard was a proponent of the Austrian school.

• 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: "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

All of this scholarship cannot be ground down by two or three Misplaced Pages editors who do not like Rothbard as an economist, and wish to erase his contribution. He was foundational and influential, a leader of the Austrians. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you were not here to participate in the RfC before it was closed, but its conclusion was clear and there was no disagreement with the stated outcome a day before the close. The RfC was closed with a clear statement of the result, including the infobox change. If you disagree as to the outcome, Perhaps I guess you could ask an admin to review the close or you could open a new RfC if you wish to reopen the question. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The references you cite do not invalidate the outcome of the RfC, which is really all that matters until a different consensus is duly achieved, and it appears on a quick look that the references are all from employees of Rothbard in his capacity as program director at the Mises Institute. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if the RfC's failure to comply with WP:RS policy wasn't obvious, and there was a valid consensus, consensus can change, especially as more info about Rothbard's notability as an economist is put in. Please stop interferring with our attempts to improve the article. This bio of a not-living person is my only Wikiproject right now besides dealing with daily minor issues on other articles as they arise. I really don't want to have to keep debating on the talk page and running to noticeboards until I'm too tired to research and write. You've seen my ability to come up wit lots of WP:RS info. And User:Binksternet has added some above. Let us do our work. Thank you. User:Carolmooredc 03:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rfc is now old news, unfortunately. I have been looking at books on the Austrian School, and Rothbard is cited by every Austrian scholar as very important as an economist. Your swipe at the notable economists and philosophers as being "employees of Rothbard's" cannot be of the least importance to us. We find the people who are the experts in the Austrian School and we look at what they say about Rothbard. What they say is that he was a giant in economics. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a general comment on the RfC (since I have no opinion on the substance of the dispute): Next time you have an RfC for a dispute, get someone to close it who wasn't a participant. Unless the RfC discussion is very one-sided, an interested-party close usually has much less influence than getting a dispassionate judgement of the result. --RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• note to specifico the question posed in the RFC was 'what should be listed first' - editors are not expected to follow all of the discussion and weigh in on every compromise proposal. In any case, the sources provided by binksternet above completely dismantle any opposition to the use of the term 'economist' to describe him and the use of the economist info-box. Your continued removal of it I can only see as disruptive, and citing an RFC means nothing because the infobox was not the subject of the RFC (which was instead about ordering of terms in the lede). I really cannot comprehend the motives here - the 'x is not notable for Y' argument is used for actors who used to wait tables, not for intellectuals who contribute in many areas. Economist is clearly WP:defining for this fellow, and no claims of 'those guys were his students' will undo that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi, the close of this RfC was botched, I think that much is clear. I've requested assistance in that matter. The purpose of the RfC was to resolve a contentious and distracting dispute and it did not end up achieving that. As to your comment about the text added by binksternet, I don't see the assertion "seminal..." in any of those sources, and the multiple citations don't strengthen the case. A single conclusive citation would be sufficient. I'm disappointed that you see my editing as disruptive, but you're entitled to your opinion. I'd be glad to discuss that further on my talk page if you wish. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been tracking the editing closely, more following the TP conversations, so I'm not sure what the allusion to "seminal" means. Again, I wandered in here randomly, and I see people claiming X isn't an economist, even though reams of sources are produced claiming he is. Thus far, I've seen nothing to weaken the argument that he is a prominent member of the Austrian school of economics. He certainly had other influences, and that's really a question of the weight in the article itself. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember the RfC also is challenged because a) it was brought prematurely before editing was allowed to deal with the issue, i.e., you brought it less than 24 hours after I promised to add relevant material on economist, (one of several reasons I got disgusted and took a 3 week wiki-break from this article); b) because there are WP:RS issues, i.e. NO current references for theoriest vs 7 high quality ones for economist; and c) because it has been used to excuse removal of critical material that was not a subject of the RfC, i.e., that Rothbard even was an economist removed from lead (since replaced) and removal of the economist infobox. User:Carolmooredc 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It matters very little in the face of the new and very powerful sources I brought to this thread, ones which emphatically state Rothbard's leadership of the Austrian School in the second half of the 20th century, also stated by as Rothbard's leadership of one half of a split in the Austrian School. Either way he's supremely important as an economist, and so the economist infobox is suitable. Also, the economist text should be brought to the fore. It's too bad nobody at the Rfc was pointing to such strong sources, but now we are all looking at them, and the consensus has changed. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a number of good references were mentioned under Favor economist first and you have added more. If we can stop the administrative etc haggling from those who say he doesn't have enough good economic refs in the article, maybe we'll have time to put in more information on his economic achievements. After all we all can spend only a few hours a day on wikipedia, not 24. User:Carolmooredc 18:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that Rothbard lacks references -- it's that he lacks achievements. It's tenuous to say he's a notable economist per WP:SCHOLAR whereas reliable sources such as the NY Times and sundry obituaries worldwide credit Rothbard with being the prime mover in the anarcho-capitalist political theory. That is his great legacy. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to have that purely personal viewpoint but do not obstruct the work of those who would like to document whatever WP:RS say they are. User:Carolmooredc 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lacks achievements? That's bullshit. If you can post in English on the internet you can read what the references above have said about Rothbard. Please do so before you make such ridiculous statements again. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lacks achievements as an economist. We have no (zero) WP:RS which states that his work as an economist is more significant than his work in originating Anarcho-capitalism and spurring the modern-day libertarian movement in the USA. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you purposely ignored the reliable sources I pointed out above? Randall G. Holcombe said Rothbard stood out because of his "academic achievements" in economics and for his "impact on the modern Austrian school" of economics. I will believe Holcombe before I believe you editing here as an anonymous economist of the Austrian School who has expressed intense distaste for the Mises "gang" and its "hijack" of the Austrian School. Your conflict of interest is openly stated and far too problematic in this biography. You are obstinately refusing to accept that Rothbard was highly respected by others of the Austrian School. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

<< Rothbard was highly respected by others of the Austrian School. >> Bink, that is not in dispute, is it? Please find an RS that says Rothbard's contributions to economics surpass his contributions to the political theory of Anarcho-capitalism. That is the content question here. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In the first sentence, the article used Justin Raimondo's An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard to cast Rothbard as more of a political theorist than an economist. I assume you approved of this formation. Have you read the Raimondo book? He writes on page 11 that, "to sum up the life and work" of Rothbard is a problem of assessing the extensive totality, that Rothbard's career "constitutes an intellectual system encompassing not only economics and political economy, but also philosophy, ethics, history, and indeed a wide range of social thought" which progressed in Rothbard from "Old Right" to "New Left" and back again in his later years. (Note how economics comes first according to Raimondo, and everything else is second.) Raimondo calls Rothbard's History of Economic Thought "magisterial". Raimondo says Rothbard was a greatly influential theorist of the Austrian School, that he "not only systematized and perfected the insights of Ludwig von Mises and his school of pure free-market economics, but also fought to establish an American beachhead for the Misesian school—and did it almost single-handedly." In his book, Raimondo writes primarily about Rothbard's politics, but he acknowledges how difficult it is to capture the essence of Rothbard's total career. He winds up the introduction to his book by saying future biographers of Rothbard will be faced with the thorny decision of how to frame a "seamlessly integrated portrait of the man", that such biographers will have to "discuss his contributions to economic thought and political philosophy" in order to get at his contribution to libertarianism. (Once again economics is first.) Moving far ahead to page 380, Raimondo concludes his book by saying Rothbard is first an economist who "succeeded in firmly establishing the Austrian School of economics in America, expanding and refining the legacy of his great mentor, Ludwig von Mises, and separating out the pure Misesian perspective from all others." After that, Rothbard must be considered the originator of a sort of 'unified field theory' of social science which is of course the anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism. Thus, despite his interest in explaining Rothbard's political side, Raimondo admits that Rothbard is first and foremost an influential economist. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bink. Please don't attribute views to me which I have not stated and if you wish to discuss a statement which I have in fact made, please provide diffs. There is an RfC on the matter of the priority of economist vs. political theorist and editors have participated there. I have stated my view in the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out and correcting refs

At this diff Steeletrap just removed information without tagging it to give one a chance to correct her or it. So I have to post this notice and explain to avoid edit warring charges. See why it's better to tag???

• Klein explicitly states Rothbard was a professor. Did you bother to read the footnote p. 54? I'll add Quote: Rothbard ..."was Professor of Economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute"
• I did find the whole relevant quote from American conservatism: an encyclopedia. Quote: "Only after several decades of teaching at the Polytechnic Institute of New York did Rothbard obtain an endowed chair, and like that of Mises at NYU, his own at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas was established by an admiring benefactor."

So can I will put corrected factoids back into the article. User:Carolmooredc 22:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for specifying the footnote. Given this new information, the Rothbard professor at brooklyn part may be restored. However, you continue to misread the "endowed chair" part. That refers to vegas, not brooklyn (a training ground for NYC transit foremen, which I doubt even had an economics "department", much less endowed chairs). You are violating policy by continuing to re-insert that. Steeletrap (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I wrote "I will put corrected factoids back into the article." that includes the endowed chair being in Las Vegas factoid. User:Carolmooredc 23:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Two "Austrian economist" sources personally connected to Rothbard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two of the sources the claim that Rothbard is an "Austrian economist" need to be deleted due to their being too personally connected to Murray. One, Ronald Hamowy, is described as being "closely associated" with "long-time friend" Murray's; another, Gerard Casey, is an "Associated scholar" of the Mises Institute, whose "academic program" Murray headed. Steeletrap (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What specifically is used in the article that is problematic and are you saying the editors would lie about it? Are they being quoted saying something highly favorable?

Is it something like Specifco's quote from Hoppe: In the words of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard." Now that could be seen as a crony comment by knowlegeable readers and I think it could be removed. Please be more specific since it's hard to keep track of everything. User:Carolmooredc 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wait, didn't he found a journal of austrian economics? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard founded The Review of Austrian Economics which later was handed over to economists at George Mason University and is ongoing. But the topic here is whether authors Hamowy and Casey are too close a cronies to be a ref for Rothbard, I have a feeling for some minor factoid, though waiting for Steeletrap to explain.

SPECIFICO used Rothbard buddy Hoppe for a raving review, so it seems to me on that basis using Hamowy and Casey for factoids is a no brainer. Waiting for further clarification. User:Carolmooredc 00:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's guideline for WP:Reliable sources does not include the notional rule that people who are experts about a specific person should be eliminated from having any influence because they are too familiar with that person. This discussion should be closed as being out-of-process. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap what's the point of not calling Rothbard an economist or Austrian economist? It's pretty evident from his bibliography, that he has had a decisive influence on both the Austrian School of Economics and Libertarianism as a whole, so why not acknowledge that whatever your opinion about the guy is? -- Fsol (talk) 09:31, 30 July 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Impartial_tone which reads: Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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".

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, 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 Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Review_opinion_rant. User:Carolmooredc 11:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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

Meta-note

I observe in passing that some parties in the camp of emphasizing Rothbard-as-economist seem to hear expressions of the contrary view as attacks on Rothbard. I think that's unnecessary and out of place. It is certainly possible to observe that, at least, Rothbard's main impact on people's consciousness (his "notability" in WP-speak) is primarily on the question of what is an ideal society rather than on the question of how humans behave in the economic sphere, and still broadly agree with Rothbard on the ideal-society question.

Now, a possible counter-argument is that Karl Marx is described as an economist (second, after "philosopher"), and I certainly don't think he did any "scientific" economics either. But then, it didn't really exist at the time, and it could be argued that "economist" should be interpreted in a way consonant with the categories of the time rather than against a fixed standard. --Trovatore (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if the same two editors had not been engaging in the same activity over a number of BLPs after writing things like the below, which I share in the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors which says "the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly" :

• This User:Steeletrap diff the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians... "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview.
• And This User:SPECIFCO diff I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition. The Mises gang have gone steadily down hill and, aside from providing a useful online archive of reprints, are currently devoted almost exclusively to expanding their own franchise through various means. They are no different in this respect than the vitamin supplement schemes...

(Much more of the same at this long deletion of talk page comments.)

I don't think a mere mortal can help but feel like there's quite a POV here. Unfortunately, while these and similar things have been quoted at ANI and NPOVN. For some reason (my guess is masses of counter-allegations against other(s) in response, instead of discussion of these obvious personal POVs), uninvolved editors don't take it seriously enough to issue strong warnings or sanctions. Just a little bit of warning are issued to both parties and the matter is dropped. Frustrating. Sigh... User:Carolmooredc 23:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carolmooredc that we cannot ignore the very obvious bias of Steeletrap and Specifico in dealing with this topic. The comments above are quite revealing. The problem is not just one of comparing reliable sources to achieve a proper balance of Rothbard's life. The problem that two editors are working against the reliable sources that tell us about how Rothbard's influence was huge in economics. Misplaced Pages does not care whether the Mises Institute is "expanding their own franchise" in the form of books which tell us that Rothbard was influential. These books are written by notable authors, and their views are significant views. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All editors, including Carol (who thinks very highly of Rothbard) and yourself, have their biases. Our contributions should be judged according to policy, in a non prejudicial matter. Please assume good faith regarding SPECIFICO and myself, or, if you aren't able to do that, report our supposedly disruptive conduct to the relevant noticeboard. Steeletrap (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I will certainly keep in mind the option of reporting your behavior. Disruptive behavior includes willful introduction of bias to an article, for the purpose of pushing a point of view. From what I've seen you are actively working against the Mises Institute sources whereas Misplaced Pages is happy to accept their books as reliable. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your speculations are laughably wrongheaded. Please put up or shut up regarding my "disruptive" beavhior. By that I mean: either report it to an ANI or, per WP:SOAPBOX, stop all the gossip about how horribly biased I am. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap. What evidence do you have I think very highly of Rothbard? Let's see the diff? I certainly have not said anything as positive as other editors on this page, including User:Binksternet. Do not interpret trying to uphold policy as being pov pushing without evidence. Please remove the comment if you cannot prove it. User:Carolmooredc 01:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I never claimed to be able to "divine" your psychological state regarding Rothbard; it's an inference I have (reasonably) drawn from your edits and remarks on this page, as well as from remarks such as (1) "I do have better things to do than fight with these people. But I really can't see them trash Murray Rothbard and downgrade him from a professional economist (they took that out of the lead til I put it back) to a mere pundit." The clear implication is that, while we are in your view "trashing" and "libeling" various wiki biographies, which you had on your account unwatched and give up on, the case of our "trashing" Rothbard is uniquely appalling/worthy of fighting against.

Note that I am not accusing your pro-Rothbard (or libertarian) views of biasing your editing; I was merely pointing out that we all have ideological commitments here (anti-scientology, anti-libertarian, pro-"freedom lovers", etc). Now let's please stow this OT silliness and get back to the task of improving this article, with OP's admonition against out of place personal charges in mind. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you were to take out the fact that Elvis Presley was a musician and singer from the lead and tried to change his infobox from musical artist to actor, I'd also say you were trashing Presley. The comments are primarily prompted by the actions. User:Carolmooredc 03:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Elvis had 100 platinum albums, etc. etc. "Economist" Rothbard apparently has no citations outside the circle of writers he hired in his capacity as Mises Institute honcho. By now the walled-garden problem has been explained to you several times and documented by uninvolved editors. If Elvis had only sung on Sunday to members of his mama's church in Memphis and had no platinum albums, we'd consider listing something else before "singer" in his bio. Your task, carolmooredc, is to find RS discussion of Rothbard's economic thought. No other editor can prevent you from finding those RS if they exist. On the other hand if such references do not exist, your disparaging speculations about other editors really won't change that. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification In going about your research, Carol, please note that work as an "economist" does not include

1) Expressing value-judgments about the way the economy should be run. (I know a "Rothbardian" Joe Six Pack at the pub I frequent; he says that we should "abolish the central bank", legalize "competing currencies", and so forth; these statements do not constitute the practice of or contributions to economics.) 2) repeating the simple statement that "Rothbard was a leading economist of the Austrian School", bereft of any discussion of his actual work as an economist (which more or less represents RS taking account of Murray's self-identification). (Note that we have already described his work teaching economics in Brooklyn and Vegas, and his Ph.D from Columbia)

Economics is a science. This means it (by definition!) involves formulating and testing hypotheses using various empirical methodologies. I encourage you to read my discussion on libertarian economist Gary Becker's contributions to economics (which are quite distinct from his personal values) to clarify any confusion. With this in mind, and policies like WP:fringe taken account of, please try to show us some contributions Rothbard has made to economics. Steeletrap (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Small correction: economics is the dismal science. But please don't go down the POV road of "economics is a science --> science is defined by main stream thinking amongst those who have tested theories, etc. --> those who disagree with the mainstream are heterodox --> heterodox, because it is outside the mainstream, is pseudoscience --> pseudoscience is fringe". (An admittedly flawed/butchered analogy.) My point is this: if there is no masquerading as "science", then labeling stuff as fringe in WP is not appropriate. In WP, "fringe" is more a term of art for editors to use when evaluating the proper balance in articles devoted to – prepare for oxymoron – genuine fringe topics. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point regarding POV et al. Science relates to the development of theories through observation and testing; a work which consists entirely of untested or untestable (e.g., value judgments) statements is not a work of science. This is a simple definitional issue that accords with WP:Fringe and follows logically from the definition of the term "science." Steeletrap (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, again I call bullshit. The field of economics includes both practical economists and theoreticians. Rothbard was an extremely influential theoretician, per Gerard Casey (philosopher), Lew Rockwell, Ralph Raico, Randall G. Holcombe, Roberta A. Modugno, Thomas DiLorenzo and David Gordon (philosopher). I don't think you will be able to find adequate reliable sources to counteract the facts from these notable observers who are all in agreement that Rothbard was a giant in economics. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

With perhaps one exception, literally every person you cite was a co-worker of Rothbard at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which formed a walled garden of Misplaced Pages articles in which most to all of the "reliable secondary sources", are from other Mises scholars/friends/coworkers (or at least were before I and other NPOV editors came on the scene). I would also add that most are not economists and described themselves as close personal friends of Rothbard. Please try to find independent secondary sources. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only are you misreading the essay Walled Garden, worse you are taking it as policy and misusing it. This is particularly obnoxious when you remove academic material like the Sage Publication article on revisionism and replace it with Raimondo who you obviously think is part of the walled garden. The essay will have to make it clear that this kind of abuse cannot be allowed to continue. User:Carolmooredc 06:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't know how much of a giant he was, which is why I rely on reliable sources, which I have a bunch of and hopefully if there isn't too much nonsense to deal with the next couple days I'll get some good opinions in there. Of course Binksternet does allude to the fact that about the only WP:RS critic you've come up with is Bryan Caplan, hardly a giant in anyone's book. I would think there'd be lots of them. Will keep my eyes open in my travel. Meanwhile, remember all the WP:OR cherry picked quote stuff is going to go at some point if secondary refs aren't found, starting with the more obnoxious stuff. So get busy doing some research yourself. User:Carolmooredc 06:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Literally" every person on my list is an expert on Rothbard's career. "Literally" every person on my list is a notable scholar (somebody should write the Modugno biography.) "Literally" every person on my list has written about Rothbard in books that are considered reliable sources in Misplaced Pages's eyes. It does not matter in the least whether these people are all in the same faction of economic thought. If you don't like how successful the Mises Institute is in reaching out to the public with their scholarship, too bad. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, rather than get sidetracked here, I encourage you to use your references to add a meaty section on Rothbard's contributions to economic research, theory, and policy. Then we will have specific content/citations to add to the article and to discuss. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion—an option I have been contemplating. The frustrating thing is that you are equally capable of adding such text to this article, but instead you reduce it. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It would not be proper for an editor to reduce content of that sort. I have not done so and unless you care to cite diffs it's really not appropriate for you to state that I have done so. Let's get back to improving the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have been working last couple days through all my notes and screen shots to put something together and will add couple refs Binksternet mentioned, so if you get there after me, feel free to play with it. In this article I don't remember Specifico removing too much properly sourced info, just the info box and perhaps a few too many primary sourced sentences without putting a "primary source" on it first. However, One can always do a "compare" shot to see everything that was removed and later find refs for anything important that needs to be put back. I see some primary sourced material from some of his sillier screeds I'm going to tag briefly and then take out at some point myself. User:Carolmooredc 20:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding my point. We'll all look forward to whatever contributions you propose. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking back, including at this talk page, I remembered a few things I complained about, so striking comment. User:Carolmooredc 21:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would restore the original with strikethrough for clarity. Thank you for acknowledging my point. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

One doesn't have to put back something that no on responded to. But I will say that I find your constantly saying to me "you concede my point" to be condescending, not to mention untrue two, and then three, of the times you said it. But let's not waste time debating the point. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 04:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, without the strikethrough original text, the post is unintelligible to anyone who didn't read the text before you removed it. Up to you of course. SPECIFICO talk 04:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain "synth" tag on non-interventionism section

Finally getting around to asking about this (if I did before can't find in mass of text above. At this diff User:Specifico puts in a "synth" tag with comment The block quote has nothing to do with Rothbard's use of Pareto et al. Needs editor attention. I don't See Pareto mentioned in this sentence: "In an obituary for his friend historical revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes, Rothbard explained why historical knowledge is important, followed by what looks like a relevant Rothbard quote about entry into WWII. Maybe it is synth, but I think we need a more policy-based explanation of the problem. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 01:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's no explanation, I'll assume you are conceding my point and remove it. User:Carolmooredc 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding fringe theory tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rothbard's Misesian economics, which fortrightly rejects the application of the scientific to economics, is fringe, and therefore the guidelines at WP:Fringe must be applied carefully to this article. Consider in this regard the words of Rothbard friend, confidante and leading Misesian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe,

" is assessment of economics as an a priori science, a science whose propositions can be given a rigorous logical justification, which distinguishes Austrians, or more precisely Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises's view."

As Hoppe notes, the Mises view is regarded as "dogmatic" and "unscientific" by mainstream and indeed all non-Misesian economists (1). The fringe issue is particularly relevant because Rothbard is a Misesian and so much of this article's discussion of Rothbard's achievements is sourced from Misesian scholars, who also worked for and in many cases were close friends with Rothbard at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Economics is the study of value exchange, of buying and selling, of barter and taxes, of large and small scale money movement. It is not first and foremost a science, as you wish to represent. I find it hilarious that you would support your fringe accusation with a reference to the exact school of thought—the Mises Institute segment of the Austrian School—that you are calling fringe. Please find a third-party mainstream source that says all of Misesian economics are considered fringe economics. Binksternet (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You already heard from User:Gamaliel regarding the accusation of FRINGE. At User talk:Gamaliel#Walled garden/fringe concerns with Mises Institute BLPs the response was that the Misesian view was probably "too prominent to qualify as WP:FRINGE." Carolmooredc disagreed with you, too. SPECIFICO commented there but not in support of your view that this material is fringe. I don't see where you get the idea that your fringe tag is relevant. Binksternet (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You should take this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for broader third-party input. That said, in searching for past discussions around this, I noticed some of the same names appearing over and over in recent disputes related to the Austrian School and associated individuals. On this page, the user page discussion referenced above, this, this. Probably more that I didn't find immediately. All of which leads me to think there is probably a broader need for dispute resolution around the topic more generally. --RL0919 (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I will kick in as well. WP:FRINGE/PS is the guidance. Four "things" are listed in the category of pseudoscience, and Misesan thought certainly does not fit into the first two. Is it "questionable science" (#3)? Steeletrap wants to say something like this: "1. Economics is science; 2. Misesans are economists and they call their Praxeology the 'science of human action'. 3. Because they use deductive reasoning, not empirical evidence, they are not scientists. 4. Anyone who rejects science, using the ideas of Misesan theory, is not in the mainstream of economic science and is therefore fringe." Steeletrap is correct to a limited extent – the Misesans have their theories, ideas, justifications, etc. They label their stuff "a priori science". But Steeletrap still needs RS that labels Misesan thought as pseudoscience (not merely questionable) before Misesan thought gets into category #3. Even at that point, a bit more care is required. And a bit more care means unless there is RS supporting the idea that Rothbard, Mises, et al. are pseudoscience, there is no justification for using/posting the editing rationale/justification of FRINGE. This is not to say Rothbard et al. are not fringe (non-capitalized). Rather, it is the posting of "FRINGE", without RS which describes them as pseudoscience, that is improper Misplaced Pages editing. (BTW, the WP:FTN has two threads on "Mises". One from a few years ago and a recent one that was off-point.) – S. Rich (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that Steeltrap already brought LewRockwell.com there because it had some articles on "fringe" AIDs theories and he didn't get his way and had to go elsewhere. This is just abusive and disruptive POV pushing and I'm going to remove the tag. If Steeletrap doesn't bring it to fringe, I will. User:Carolmooredc 13:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a well-known group of economists take issue with the methodological norms of contemporary economics is a potentially valid position, which we are not here to judge as such. Certainly we can say that the normal methodological arguments used in economics by people like Becker are extremely controversial in themselves. And the argument is often made (even within economics) that economists like him and Friedman who get citations for methodology are actually themselves working way outside their field of training and expertise, playing at philosophy. So disagreeing with this particular faction, even if it is mainstream, does not make anyone "fringe" by WP policy.

The second type of argument where you say that this group is proud of not being taken seriously by mainstream scholars is potentially more relevant, but it reads like hyperbole and will need more evidence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

...Even with strong evidence the second type of argument (that the Mises followers see themselves as "fringe" within economics) is of dubious relevance according to WP norms. The problem is that it that asking for a "blanket" ban on any kind of source is always going to be quite a big ask...

Thank you for clear heading thinking, Andrew! User:Carolmooredc 13:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The instance you cite is yet another dispute involving the same cast of editors, spread across an article talk page and two noticeboards. This is obviously bigger than one tag on one article. --RL0919 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The complaint about fringe is, I don't think the reality is. I personally got involved because of what I saw as outrageous attempts to enter wp:undue amounts of biased, WP:OR material to a number of BLPs, which I have been fighting for years on Misplaced Pages on other topics. Did you have some solution in mind? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

FRINGE tag removed. – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to drop the tag for now and bring this notice to the fringe noticeboard. Per the remarks of another user, this is a bigger issue than one page and needs to be resolved with the input of multiple uninvolved users. Steeletrap (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And have at it at WP:FTN. When doing so, please have supporting RS that describes Rothbard, Mises, and the like as pseudoscience. To help you out with the FTN, here is the only thread that mentions Rothbard: WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Input requested regarding Austrian School. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

IPA for name pronunciation

It is not normally necessary to give a pronunciation for the name of an English speaker on English Misplaced Pages unless there is some obvious possible misunderstanding. Furthermore the pronunciation someone has put here seems a bit eccentric to me, both in English and in German (the "o" and the "a" in Rothbard having the same pronunciation and the r being pronounced as a simple r like in red). Is there any reason to think this is needed. I am going to be bold and delete it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Formats for sources

I hope this advice can be helpful. I am seeing footnotes like this ":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 ]'', D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962; 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 '']'', D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962; 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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.

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)

• Good article reassessment nominees
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• GA-Class philosopher articles
• Mid-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• GA-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
• Contemporary philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• GA-Class Columbia University articles
• Low-importance Columbia University articles
• WikiProject Columbia University articles