Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 21 June 2013

Template:BLP noticeboard

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. Biography: Science and Academia 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 This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spain Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Low This article has been rated as Low-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. Economics Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Review of book

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

Meaning, substance, and implications

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

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

Meaning, substance, and implications

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

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

ISBNs

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

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

Disambiguation

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

Non-English de Soto books

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

A list shows nothing if we don't know the descriptions of the items. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is already got a listing of works, and I do not propose to include all 41 items. (Also, some of the WorldCat listings overlap.) But I posted the link as a source for others to work off of. And it tends to show that deSoto has a mainly Spanish audience. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Soto's website

Just found his bibliography from his web site. Barely looked but think I found a couple peer reviewed works there. Of course, I should have just studied his English Translated website better; will look there for more goodies tomorrow. Will look more tomorrow unless you beat me too it and put up most prestigious works. In fact there's lots of stuff there, though obviously can't use anything too self-promotional. Of CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

Carol, what you cite is not a bibliography of de Soto's works but rather a bibliography of works he cites in one of his books. If John Q libertarian cite a Milton Friedman essay in his freshman ECO 101 paper, that does not mean he wrote the Friedman essay. (Some de Soto works are indeed cited there, but the ones I've looked at so far are published by the "usual suspects".) Steeletrap (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, it was a listing that included some of his works. That translation page is tricky for some reason, and you have to stick http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm into google translate and keep playing with it to get to the many relevant pages. Yeah - I see now he has frames. So you have to go to each page (including under CV) and just copy and paste the Spanish text to translate that page into English. But it's all there and I doubt he'd lie about any of it :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, FYI: Misplaced Pages:SPS#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves reads: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Curriculum Vitae, article lists, etc can be useful to lead to secondary sources or can be used when there aren't others, as long as reasonable number used. If there's a stalled debate third parties can always be asked to comment. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

At this diff User:Specifico removed sourced content from Soto's CV? Specifically, He was Vice President and member of the Board of Directors of the Mont Pelerin Society from 2000 to 2004.REF:Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see Curriculum Vitae, Otros Meritos. It's usuable per WP:SPS above. Do you have some problem with his veracity? If not, please put it back. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

That's a relief. Put it back with the corrected citation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove ref tag?

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

Spanish Hayek Edition.

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

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

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

His CV is the primary source, and is acceptable (used with caution). The publisher data is secondary. We can look at and supply ISBNs, which serve to verify that something was published. WorldCat (oclc) data is available as well, which lists him as a contributor to the various works. The footnote serves to show he worked on the Spanish Hayek stuff, we don't need a secondary source that elaborates on his role. I'll revise the restored paragraph to say he "worked on" these volumes and thereby downplay the implication that he was "the" editor, thus resolving any OR or SYN problem. – S. Rich (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the publisher page is an additional primary source. Please review policy and undo your edit, while resolving on talk per BRD. Please don't just try out your proposed solution. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

BRD wise, User:Specifico has repeatedly reverted the original edit and it has been in contention, so his reverting again without further disussion would be edit warring. Also books google verification of who published what is the kind of "primary source" used all the time. And more reliable than secondary sources which often get publishers and versions confused. Learn to use tags like verification needed instead of always reverting.

I'll mention which of those refs specifically list him as editor or co-editor with the other editors of the Chicago series, who also can be verified. After doing a general search for other secondary sources. There is no reason to assume he lied or is inaccurate or is not reliable in this. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

This article is about Soto. What he says about himself is Primary stuff, and acceptable. As his cv is published for the world to examine, we can assume it is reliable. And as it refers to himself, not to anyone else, it is useful in this article. When a publisher lists so-and-so as an author of a book that the company has published, the publisher is not writing about the person, but about the works it publishes. No BLP violation is occurring. Absolutely none. – S. Rich (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

How can it be a BLP violation to quote himself? At most it would be a WP:RS violation. Take it to WP:RSN where you will find CVs are generally acceptable, and those that are backed up with refs like list of books and the editors I just added even more so. I'm sure somewhere there's a Spanish language review mentioning all this. Why not help verify by looking for it? I know you want to keep his notable connection to the U of C in there. :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

WRT the diff that you posted, I am unclear on what your point is. WRT personal statements and their pertinence to opinions but not facts -- what guidance are you referring to? (Per WP:ABOUTSELF information about the person is acceptable. That seems to say: "You can give your date of birth. You can say what your opinion is (like 'I believe government should ....'")) WRT to "canceling" the series -- how (not why) do we know it was cancelled? WRT the Chicago catalog -- what evidence do we have that it is not RS? – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Could we keep discussion on this talk page? Special pleading for one's edits on involved users talk pages really is distracting to all involved. thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not mischaracterize my remarks or insinuate that other editors are violating WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is distracting to have to watch editors talk pages to see if they are discussing an issue. I'm not sure if it's against policy; want me to look? And it does look to me personally as special pleading. And, of course, unless you find something about why it was cancelled, it's pretty much irrelevant. Maybe JHDS got too busy or the Spanish publishing house couldn't afford it. Or the Spanish were selling so many more copies that it was too much competition for the English publishers. I'm sure we could speculate about all sorts of dastardly reasons as well, but that would be against policy. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Lame-O award

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

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

Lame-O? That doesn't sound very civil. Anyway, it takes time to put things together. Sometimes one puts them in the order one finds them. I haven't even started looking into books.google, where I'm sure larger context will be found to support mentioning the tribute. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be much more informative for the reader to focus on Soto's substantive contributions to Economics. How many tens of thousands of tributes to Ronald Reagan have been filed and forgotten? We don't mention in the lede of everyone who's written homage to Reagan, Hayek, Mises, or even J. Edgar Hoover and Robert Moses. The fact that Soto crossed paths with Murray or that Soto had Murray on his mind is not the most important part of Jesus' contribution as an economist. Soto has written on various topics of economics, some of which differentiate him from other writers. These would be the important points to cover in an article, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add that content to help save the article from deletion. The more the merrier. But first we have to source what is already there and is important. Articles are not built in a day, especially by unpaid volunteers. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that none of the current content demonstrates his notability. It's not that it's poorly sourced, it's that it is all Googled trivia and drivel. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To repeat a version of the above...I haven't even begun to look in books.google where the hardcore stuff is. First we have to ref existing material. That's the way editors who like to add constructive content roll... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird Language

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

First, the chair mention is from one of the the two Mises interviews and I pretty much wrote it the way he said it since not being an academic I don't know what the phrase means, though I've heard it. In one of the interviews he also talks about how the Spanish (as in Spain) higher education system differs from American and how his university (can't remember which one) is run. I was thinking a sentence or two on that might be of interest, but didn't want to run into the off-topic police. Also, if you look at his CV/Títulos Académicos description he lays it all out. Maybe you can figure it out better than I can if you have some experience with non-American academia. Collaboration means helping solve these mysteries ;-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the Mises Institute interview that Carol uses as her source that "chair" means a different thing in Spain than "endowed chair" means in the United States. de Soto says that "All professors ... hold their chairs for life". This sounds like some sort of title that Spanish economists get after graduate school.

On a broader level, don't you (SPECIFICO) consider it mildly amazing that everyone who offered a specific argument (a couple users gave no reason whatsoever) for saying "keep" for Jesus not only had a dubious rationale but one that can actually be falsified by a few minutes Googling? (e.g., the idea that Krugman talked about Jesus as opposed to an anonymous commentator on his blog; the idea that Mont Pelerin Society is a prestigious academic group akin to the National Academy of Sciences; and the idea that Jesus holds an endowed chair in economics). Steeletrap (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am greatly distressed, in general, that editors would use Google tools and Google Translate text to generate encyclopedia content, as if those quickies could substitute for genuine research, familiarity with the article's subject matter, and in this case understanding of Jesus' work. The unfortunate result is that WP articles can then serve to propagate a characteristic laziness of thought and intellectually vacuous speech. There are published comments from various RS that tend to be dismissive of Jesus' efforts to portray himself as a serious academic economist, but I have not collated or fully evaluated them for use in the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Government owned university

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

Looks like he was explaining that the important Us in Spain are government owned (which also explains his civil servant chair), as compared to the US where we have a few privately owned important Us. "Public university" is the commonly accepted term for English readers. Also, "government owned" has an implication of state-controlled to it, which I don't think he was intending. I'd like to stick with the simpler, less awkward, yet completely accurate version we have now. Let's hear what other editors think. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jesus speaks fluent English so any nuance in his words must be respected as reflecting his intention. Given his further remarks in the interview, I think it's clear he meant to imply all of the shades of "government owned" in this context. Please undo your edit. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

He's remarkably fluent in English and highly articulate in his Mises.org interview (much more so than most Americans), so it's clear that the use of the term "government owned" is deliberate. Steeletrap (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with government owned in quotes. Nevertheless, (per above section) silly jokes about other country's academic from editors who allege to be academics in this country really are... silly and off topic... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't notice me voting for deletion of this article, do you? I hope it turns out this is a serious notable guy and that a great article will be written about him. If you are accusing me of being an "academic," please don't. I outgrew that long ago and went on to bigger things. I do still have my chair in the library in my offices here. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I too am open to being proven wrong about de Soto. But the "keep" votes so have all been based on either falsified or (in your case, Carol) vague/unspecific and therefore meaningless criteria. So we aren't making much progress. Steeletrap (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Full Reserve Banking Constitutes Fraud even in a free market.

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

The quote was provided in the context of what Rothbard thinks. I did not notice that you had removed the Rothbard reference, so I'm not sure if you'll accept modification which includes the quote but excludes Rothbard. (Perhaps I should have posted an {{inuse}} message.) In any event, the references are magazine articles and the HighBeam Research link does not provide page numbers for the particular items. This effort to expand the section certainly needs more work. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If I am correct in understanding you to say that the source is only your personal surmise, please remove the text immediately. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not correct – . There are two sources supporting the single sentence that I added in an effort to expand the article a small bit more. I'm the last person you'd see adding their personal surmise. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I remember reading that somewhere else, since I don't agree with that view in the private sector so I was disappointed by it. But hopefully I misunderstood and he's actually a free market money guy (like Hayek and Rothbard). Anyway, I hope to find evidence of the latter. Books.google i sthe place to look. Time will tell. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Various sources for general info and his banking theories

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

• Towards a Theoretical Framework for British and International Economic .etc says Soto and certain other Austrians are “historians of economic thought” who recognize thinkers before Adam Smith (stick Austrian and historian econ. thought in the lead?)
• Ethics of Money Production mentions Soto and affinity between Austrians and scholastic tradition on fractional reserve.
• Mark Skousen says influenced by him (one of many listed, unless other sources found)
• Soto book chapter on recession, reform, etc.
• Mentions he’s 2009 Schlarbaum Award winner - of Ludwig von Mises Institute
• Ron Paul book also mentions he’s vs Fractional reserve (Used it)
• The Salamanca School (Continuum International Publishing Group) mentions in footnotes: a) soto thinks fractional-reserve banking is one of the causes of boom and bust cycles; b) Also says he’s one of main economists of Austrian school with Mises and Rothbard; c) he wrote the “most complete and integrated analysis of the theories of banking of the Salamanca school” (used it)
• Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles is his most referenced work. At this link he mentions various theories of “denationalization of money” and free banking and criticizes them...- Page 675
  • “Free Banking” by Prof. Larry J. Sechrest has responses from Soto to his critique; most detailed critique.
  • Walter Block general (or specific?) comments on issue: Block disagrees mentioning him as footnote; Wrong_with_Clown_or_Play_Money Walter Block comments but I don’t feel like giving them my facebook info need to read it and see if Block mentions Soto in more detail.
  • Prof. Lawrence H. White responds to Jesus Huerta de Soto on Banking (Part 1); (Part 2); (Part 3) - and probably not useable since reprinted on one or more blogs. Dang...

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

Sectioning

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

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

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

Peer reviewed articles that should be mentioned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography Bloat

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

Perhaps you are right. An article like Friedrich Hayek bibliography might be good. For now, though, this listing does not deserve a separate article. Still, it also serves as a source for editors who might want to expand on the beefier (lean beef, that is) portions of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is listing every translation. Perhaps it could be stated as "Also published in" and name languages and if necessary ref each mention so it will just appear as a ref.

As you noticed above I added a bunch of articles. I figured those who state they know what are the highest quality peer review articles would be able to opine on which of the above are and those could replace lower quality ones in the article. I haven't heard since opinions yet. Perhaps I'll have to figure it out myself. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

de Soto's contributions

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

My sense of Soto's "contribution" is that he's channeled Murray Rothbard for the Spanish market without having made any original contributions to economic research or theory. This would not generally be sufficient to sustain a career as an academic economist but Soto's staying power may come from other sponsorship. Aside from what could be called academic contributions, it's possible that Soto has addressed the well-publicized policy issues that relate to Spain's role in the recent economic crisis. Any such material might compensate for a lack of original work in the field. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What you mean is additional information,not clean up. Have you looked at Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Various_sources_for_general_info_and_his_banking_theories for starters? Actually the most discussion I've found just typing his name into books.google, etc is his views on fractional reserve banking. And there are discussions of his work on fractional reserving banking linked above. He is in a middle of a debate among Austrians as to when it constitutes fraud.

Today I did see a mention that he has views in other areas, but they were not detailed. It's all about the research. Yes, it needs work to include these views, but someone has to do it. Are you willing? Otherwise have patience with volunteers. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I did my undergraduate degree in economics and statistics and my master's degree is also in a social science. I know about this stuff. Being a "social scientist" is not just about getting a PhD so you can get a job and so your political opinions on economic matters carry more weight with laypersons. It's about doing the hard work of empirical research and statistical modeling that constitute the social sciences. All this article does is detail Jesus' educational background, his employment history, his translating of Austrian School texts, his friendship with libertarians and affiliations with libertarian groups, his opinions about political matters (which could be stated by a person with no training in economics), his discussion of economic history (i.e. his interpretation of the views of the Renaissance Salamanca School) and a bloated bibliographic section which does not specify what these books/articles are about and how they relate to economics. Nothing in Jesus' article relates to the work he has done as an economist. Steeletrap (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

First, anonymous people claiming outside expertise is not only not very credible but gives the impression some editors are more equal than others. Such arguments really are uncalled for.

Second, see comment about we're all volunteers and you can always add such material yourself. Patience. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Proper way to mention name

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

The article {{DEFAULTSORT}} is Huerta De Soto. Guidance on usage of Spanish surnames is not too clear. I think either usage is fine. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like someone who knows better than us did that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Sorry I didn't clarify that in my removal. If the argument specifically mentions Huerta de Soto, fine. I listed a couple above that do, as does an existing ref, though the latter only in passing. Just haven't had time to look for more. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see User:SPECIFICO is edit warring again by adding material that does not mention Huerta de Soto, against policy. So it's three refs instead of one, still irrelevant. Geez, do I have to keep taking him to noticeboards )WP:BLPN this time) to get Admins to explain policy to him? (And quote his POV so they won't think he's just a confused newbie.)

On another note, finally getting around to writing a bit on Huerta de Soto's economic views and found he's had quite a bit to say about Milton Friedman we can mention. Maybe I'll find something he has to say about Krugman too. So hopefully we will have a larger and relevant section soon. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Synthesis tag

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

I've expanded the discussion topic on the talk page and commented. Adding the two ideas -- Friedman's and de Soto's views -- is WP:SYN. de Soto is reported to have said "only the Austrians predicted stagflation/GD." (The "A".) You want to add "Friedman predicted stagflation/GD." (The "B".) The new position ("C") -- that de Soto was wrong about being the only ones correct about stagflation/GD is: "A and B, therefore C" acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. So, not only do we have an unacceptable "C", it is off-topic because the topic of the article is the biography of de Soto, and not the various economic theories (or history of economic theories) that he has written about. It does not matter if there is RS for A or B. The C is the unacceptable part. (And the B is off-topic because it is not about de Soto.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you intend the tag to be "OR" or something else? Anyway, I didn't state what you're calling the synth C. Just giving context on a matter of history and theory from mainstream source. The statement "only Austrians predicted X" is also not about Soto. I am not seeing any OR here? SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Which tag do you think is pertinent? 2. The "C" is implicit, e.g., that de Soto was wrong. So it is unacceptable. 3. The italicized statement above is policy. 4. Milton, in 1967, clearly was not addressing what de Soto was going to say 44 years in the future. 5. So, if you want to say de Soto was wrong because he does not reference what Milton had said 44 years earlier, you must find RS (not your own interpretation) to support that position. – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:OR Best and I should have used myself. It reads: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. And WP:BLP refers to WP:OR frequently. Frankly, I only skimmed enough to see it wasn't about JHDS, so can't say if it's synthesis; I just looked at ref links and saw no mention of JHDS. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So I've now tagged the material as {{syn}}. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no SYNTH there. Poor Soto -- he's being protected from fresh air like a sickly old asthmatic. Soto is strong! He stands tall! He is and able to live and breathe in a sentence next to the immortal Milton Friedman. Here's to both of them. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

: FYI, please see: BLP on talk pages and WP:Civil. Mocking the subject of an article because you disagree with editor's comments on policy is just not the way to collaborate and can make people angry and frustrated. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is Milton cited? – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at here: Flat Earth Society. "The myth that the earth was flat..." Now, should we say "Soto gave voice to the myth that the Austrians were the only ones to predict the staglation..." Decisions, decisions! SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

First, even for an academic paper it's a false argument since the source says that BOTH 1929 and stagflation predicted and you give only one. But in Misplaced Pages terms it is argumentative WP:OR (rereading sentence I hit it on nail first time around).

Synthesis is a subsection of OR, so almost as good.

SPECIFICO: What part of "directly related" do you not understand? By the way, here's books google on JHDS and Fractional reserve banking. You can find various commentary there about Huerta de Soto and the topic if you want to work on this in Misplaced Pages terms not in "I'm a competing academic out to ridicule and destroy this fool" terms.

Do we really have to get other voices in here to explain that simple point to you? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles K. Johnson's article does not have a section explaining that he was right or wrong or giving alternative or supporting or opposing views. That is the difference. Adding Milton is SYN. Pure and simple. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That's cause it's a stub article without a single valid source. Think first, type second, my motto. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

{Insert}: You've been keeping us pretty busy dealing with policy issues on your changes on a number of articles, so forgive us if we're a bit behind on adding some well sourced commentary here. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

good explanation... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Remarks about remarks

And note that you demanded I make them. Which I've removed. Now why don't you ask User:Specifico to remove his ridiculing remarks about Huerta de Soto? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility has suggestions for uncivil attacks on other editors or the subject of an article. I mean they do just heat up the temperature - and often lead to less than civil responses to the incivility that just escalate. ("Strive to become the editor who can't be baited.") However, it is appropriate to point these out on the talk page in a civil manner. So I shall try again. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard link

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

Given no response on the WP:OR policy issue, also brought to WP:ORN. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Heurta de Sotos views elaborated

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

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

Skousen views corrected

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

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

At this diff User:Specifico removed the sourced material that supported Huerta de Soto's contention that both Hayek and Mises predicted 1929 writing: (Delete WP:SYNTH juxtaposing unrelated statements in cited source) Don't worry, when I fix the order it will all become clear. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

[Later - put back what got accidentally truncated & improved translation: Stephen Kresge, General Editor, The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek in 22 volumes, published by The University of Chicago Press in the U.S. and Routledge in England, commissioned (Huerta de Soto) "Editor of the Spanish Edition" to all Spanish-speaking countries ...The work of the editor of the Spanish edition is to coordinate and manage the entire collection...

So first we need to clean that up and I put a WP:OR tag on it.

Also addition verification that can be added is a couple of editors of the U Chicago collection co-edited the Spanish editions with him. Will add if necessary.

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

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

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

_______

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

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

Specifically seems to have a few more things like to ensure there's "a bibliography in Spanish, and write Forewords, Introductions, Introductory Notes and/or Preliminary Studies to the volumes in the series." Now that's a lot more than just "verify footnotes and proofread".

A more accurate way to put it would be:

The editor of The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek published by the University of Chicago Press commissioned Huerta de Soto as editor of seven volumes of the Spanish language edition, published by Union Editorial in Madrid. In addition to editorial oversight, he wrote Forewords, Introductions and Introductory Notes.

Is it necessary to say "according to Huerta de Soto" here when do not do elsewhere? Would he make something like this up and stick it in his resume? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Assigned sounds more professional, eh, and still infers payment. But looking for better, human translation per WP:V, which is what is relevant to WP:BLP.

I think I clearly identified that I changed it, which is acceptable, and then included the change in my proposal.

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

So you are saying that everything in Soto's CV is merely his opinion and none of it can be used in the article, even with a perfect translation? See: Misplaced Pages:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, as well as opinions atMisplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Curriculum_vitae; Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24 which all say a self-published source can be used if identified as such, unless there is some truly questionable self-serving claim. If this one is the one you feel must be identified in the text as being from his CV, fine, we can do that.

Verifying that editors of the English version were editors of some of his versions will help confirm this isn't some rogue translation/publication of U of C's work, though I'm sure it would be quite the scandal if it was. And we could always look at what the intro of the first book or two has to say about his relation, properly translated of course. (Though my spanish is good enough for a quick scan, with a little help from our friendly spies at google translate.)

Luckily all we old retired people have nothing better to do than fuss over these details... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Misean strain?

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

Plain English. Why create a red link? What would you prefer? The Mises/Rothbard tradition? The identifies with the theories of Mises and Rothbard? Identifies with the views of the Mises Institute? Nothing vague about it, it is referenced in the article and in his work. Deliberately creating a red link doesn't improve the text. Why not put brackets around other word pairs? government cabals historical facts proposed abolition etc. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Misean strain is fine if a WP:RS uses it. I did a search, didn't find that, and thus removed it; he reverted of course. How many WP:RS in the Austrian School article are there making such a sharp distinction? There's a spectrum of views and mixing and matching by various individuals and it's absurd to try to separate them into the "good guys" and the "bad guys" unless you have a mind that only sees dualities.

Since discussing POV is appropriate on article talk pages [added later per user's comment on my talk page: per Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors) and (especially if one is banned from the subjects talk page), let me say:

SPECIFICO's POV is an alleged PhD economist of the "credible" Austrian School and he repeatedly has expressed contempt for Ludwig von Mises-related economists (as well as editors who he perceives as defending them) as at April 20 diff, April 21 diff,May 28 diff - not to mention his comments ridiculing Huerta de Soto on this talk page.

User:SPECIFICO's obsessive POV has blinded him to Misplaced Pages policies and somehow he's gotten away with it despite his first block for editing warring, protection of an article after complaint of his editwarring, several ANIs against him by longtime editors who he drove so crazy they edit warred and got banned (will we be next?), various other noticeboard complaints. Such a mountainous POV dissuades rational argument. It's definitively time for an WP:RfC/User and I'm sure there are still a few editors around willing to comment. Let's get some mentoring for User:SPECIFICO!

SRich: Please don't "collapse/hide" this! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SPECIFICO, for removing the lemon. (CarolMooreDC, the fact that you don't want me to hide your comments is an indication that I have good reason to do so. In this case, however, I would not because I am an involved editor.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple reflection of the WP:RS is always better than a WP:OR wording that evokes objections. (No, I won't hide your comment, SRich :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Undue on Larry J. Sechrest criticism

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

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

Removing Mises and Rothbard full names/links from lead?

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

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

Remove two templates in "Economic views" section?

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

Quote from two nobodies

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

I have found several quotes from US Austrian economists but I knew you'd remove them because you remove anyone in the least related to or talking to anyone related to Mises as NOT being a reliable source or some other questionable excuse. (Unless it's Gary North who you obviously like to use.) I have them written down somewhere. If someone else encourages me to find them I'll put them in. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Spain articles
• Low-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• Start-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles