Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Comments about tone of article

I'm a reader of Rothbard and other libertarians (e.g. Mises, Rockwell). On Rothbard, I've read everything from his 1400+ page economic treatise "Man, Economy, and State" to his pamphlets, opinion articles, and even his secular construct on ethics, "The Ethics of Liberty". I've listened to hundreds of hours of lectures from Rothbard and other libertarians. From time to time, I check their Wikis. Over the past 6 months, I've noticed a pattern with the Austro-Libertarian Wikis. Useful, unbiased information has been removed and replaced with highly selective information to portray the target in an extremely negative light. Often, the context is removed from the information to distort the reader's impression. Granted, a cursory, almost obligatory skeleton of their pages are left over, so as not to arise suspicion. The method of vandalism is more sophisticated than getting on the Wiki and writing "Rothbard was a stupid head". Here, the most common assault on the Wikis is "undue weight". Don't believe me? Take a look at the Wikis of Rothbard, Mises, Rockwell, Tom Woods, Thomas Dilorenzo (and others?) etc. Compare them using the "WayBackMachine" ca. 2012. Case and point: Rothbard wrote extensively on other topics such as the gold standard, this was central to his life's work (books, lectures, economic treatises, etc.). There is NO MENTION of the gold standard in this ENTIRE article. Compared this to the minor musings on contemporary American politics Rothbard wrote on "right wing populism". Out of the HUNDREDS of contributions Rothbard made, about 15% of the article is DOMINATED with references to one single uncontroversial article. Another point: Steeletrap is so concerned with adding Duke and Thurmond as "influences of Rothbard" because they like Rothbard believed in lower taxes, etc. Rothbard was an ANARCHIST not some right winger, he founded an ANARCHIST school of thought, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM. Just because he thinks lower taxes and decentralized government are LESS BAD than high taxes and centralized government, and he saw Duke as a contemporary politician who is running on this platform does NOT mean Rothbard was "influenced" by these nobody politicians. Do you honestly believe that Rothard didn't hate taxes etc. until he read a newspaper article on David Duke?SpokAnCap (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

He was both: a right-wing anarchist. MilesMoney (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, the prefix "right" and "left" are misnomers when applied to anarchists. There are only left statists and right statists.SpokAnCap (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpokAnCap, there are such things as left and right Anarchism. Anarcho-syndicalism, Anarchist communism, and Mutualism are examples of Left-Anarchism, the traditional school of Anarchism which has roots in the early 19th Century. Right wing "Anarcho-Capitalism" is considered by traditional left Anarchists to be a right wing deviant. To say that there are no left/right claimants to the title of Anarchism is incorrect. --DrCruse (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear SpokAn, you're free to add appropriate text to the article, provided it is based on and cited to verifiable WP:RS references. Focus on content and article improvement and do not misrepresent, denigrate, or attack other editors. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, look at this link for example: http://web.archive.org/web/20120405093738/http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Murray_Rothbard. All content was sourced and verifiable, yet INEXPLICABLY REMOVED. I will not waste my time adding content which was removed during a vandalism only to have it removed again by the same vandal. This is vandalism (i.e. "blanking" as defined by Wikipedia guidelines) and violates NPOV. You may not be aware of the situation, I suggest you look more closely.SpokAnCap (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpokAnCap, you bring up several points. Regarding Steeletrap's influence on this and other Austrian School/libertarian economics articles, I agree. However, the proper venue to address the issue would be WP:RFCU, a discussion centered around the activities of just one editor.

You mention the gold standard as not being covered here. The first "good article" version of this biography established March 2007 had no coverage of the gold standard. The article was reassessed (should the GA status be kept?) in July 2009 and the version of the article which was kept at that time contained a section on "Free market money" which covered some of Rothbard's thoughts on the gold standard and on free banking. The same section was still present in December 2011; it was even a bit larger. Specifico cut down that section on June 25–26 then chopped it again on August 2, at which point it was made ridiculously insufficient: one short sentence which failed to represent Rothbard's core point. Even this short section was eventually removed.

Naturally, the article should talk about Rothbard's gold standard stance. The David Gordon biography covers it, the Rockwell book about the gold standard discusses Rothbard's advocate role, the Jesús Huerta de Soto book on bank credit talks about Rothbard's stance, Joseph Thomas Salerno criticizes the Rothbard position in his Money, Sound and Unsound, James Arnt Aune in Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness says Rothbard was the "standard bearer" for the gold standard folks, Gerrit Beine cites Rothbard in his The Gold Standard: Theory, History, and Renaissance, etc. Editors such as Specifico and Steeletrap have been working against sources such as these in their campaign to eliminate as much as possible the influence of Rothbardian economic thought. They have been slowly but carefully eviscerating this article of its strongest arguments, bit by bit. It's kind of like the frog that got boiled to death because each small increase in water temperature was not significant enough for him to recognize the danger. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're correct about the venue to address issues with specific editors. However, I'm new to Wikipedia and the learning curve is quite steep. Apologies if I broke protocol. Regardless, the case in my posts and many others within this talk page is quite clear. Something fishy is going on with the austrolibertarian wikis, and according to Wikipedia guidlines, "blanking" is in fact a form of vandalism. SpokAnCap (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like that. Comparing Murray's "economic thought" to a boiled toad. No argument here. Nice. SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your NPOV is really showing.SpokAnCap (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors are straying from WP:TPYES. "Comment on content, not the contributor." – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard article used to be entirely sourced to Mises co-workers

Before I got on the scene, the article was almost entirely sourced by personal friends of Rothbard's, in terms of "scholars" (many of whom lacked any economics/philosophy education or academic position) at the Institute he founded. These incredibly biased "scholars" usually characterized Rothbard, who had a marginal impact on philosophy and WP:Fringe economics, as being the most important philosopher/economist in U.S. history. While these biased sources are still used, we have noted their connection with Rothbard's Institute and parsed some of the more absurd and redundant praise from the piece. We have also added discussion of Rothbard from mainstream, non-connected sources; these sources, which were never mentioned in past, cult-approved versions of this article, usually discussed his work (e.g., his cozying up to Holocaust Denier "historians" of WWII) in a negative light. In fact, virtually all the mainstream sources I've found appear to consider him to be either incompetent or dishonest as a scholar. Our job on Wikipedia is to accurately represent the reception of Rothbard's ideas, with special emphasis on how Rothbard was received by mainstream, independent sources. I'm proud to have played a role in doing that. Steeletrap (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Citing "mainstream" sources is not the issue. There is nothing wrong with citing "mainstream" sources, however this may be difficult since Rothbard was largely ignored by the mainstream. The issue here is "blanking" type vandalism and over emphasis of trivial works in favor or works which to the casual reader may portray an incorrect image of Rothbard. I've noticed the hostile editors have no qualms citing mises.org and Lew Rockwell when quotes from these articles are used to portray Rothbard negatively. Albiet, in context there is nothing controversial in these articles which is why the editors seek to trim all quotes from these articles and undo expansion of these quotes. Also, how does an editor expect to avoid citing sources like mises.org when nearly all of Rothbard's work is available free on mises.org? Why is there an aversion to citing Rothbard works in a positive sense in a Wiki about Rothbard? Also, why did the editors feel it necessary to remove all references to the gold standard (ie. free market money)? Rothbard wrote extensively including on this subject in his books: "The Case to a 100% Gold Dollar", "Man, Economy, and State", "America's Great Depression", "The Case Against the Fed", "For a New Liberty", "What Has Government Done to Our Money" and many more lectures and articles. If an editor is so concerned with portraying Rothbard accurately, how can this topic be removed? Take a look at the page history and see which editors felt Rothbard shouldn't be known at all for the gold standard and would rather him being known for writing a single article on David Duke. Tossing around words like "cult" is a last refuge for an editor who knows their intellectual argument is lostSpokAnCap (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing "mainstream" sources, however this may be difficult since Rothbard was largely ignored by the mainstream.

The article must be based on mainstream sources, per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. This is not negotiable. The LvMI may not literally be a religious cult, but the analogy works in a practical sense — it is a group with limited reference to, and with little notice by mainstream economics, as you yourself seem to admit. You are welcome to remove any material from the article that is referenced solely to an LvMI publication. — goethean 22:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpokAnCap, you may see his advocacy of the gold standard as a key attribute, but this is very much the sort of blinkered view-from-within that we'd expect from LvMI publications. From the outside, the mainstream may well find him more notable for defending Duke. We have to reflect the mainstream view, not the LvMI view. This is not negotiable. MilesMoney (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Making absolute statements such as "this is not negotiable" should be based on reality, not wishful thinking. The guideline at WP:NPOV says we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That is, we should be fair to Rothbard's legacy, we should represent him proportionately, and we should shelve any bias as we do so.

If an interested editor were to look around he would find many references to Rothbard's position on gold, for instance in Mark Skousen's book Economic Logic(start on page 412). Skousen is an Austrian economist who was never one of Rothbard's colleagues. Skousen credits a Rothbard book as the spark which started his career in Austrian economics. In his own book he credits Rothbard as "the premier libertarian economist of the 20th century." Skousen devotes several sentences to describe the importance of Rothbard's writings about the gold standard.

This notional interested investigator would also find Thierry Aimar's book, The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination. Aimar writes about Rothbard's position on the gold standard, and cites four of Rothbard's writings on the subject on page 206: 'The Case of Genuine Gold Standard', 1986; 'The Myth of Free Banking in Scotland', 1988; 'Aurophobia: or Free Banking on What Standard', 1992; 'The Present State of Austrian Economics', 1995. Based in France, Aimar is an Austrian economist with no connection to Rothbard's LvMI. Aimar cites Rothbard many times in his book (I counted more than 50), and though he is critical he acknowledges Rothbard's influence. These are only two of the many possible choices. The existence of books such as these punches holes in Steeletrap's assertion that Rothbard was not influential. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Two observations: This article is about Rothbard. Not Mises.org. Discussions pertaining to Mises.org should go on that page. Next, "welcome to remove any material from the article that is referenced solely to an LvMI publication" goes beyond what WP:RS#Context matters says. We evaluate RS via a variety of factors. WP:SCHOLARSHIP has 7 bulleted items that provide guidance in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, you make a convincing case that material on this topic should clearly be in the article. But it looks like the sections previously in this article were entirely sourced to primary or Mises sources, which raises the question of the reliability of those sections, as they could have been cherry picked from those sources. This is why I'd be reluctant to restore any of those sections unless I had more firsthand knowledge of this topic to judge their accuracy and reliability in terms of how they represent Rothbard's work. I would support a section on this topic sourced to secondary sources such as the ones you mention. Gamaliel (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this and other US Right biographies is that mainstream sources have generally ignored them, although they tend to be mentioned in passing in lots of books. I think our best approach is to write short articles and let readers go to their writings if they want to know more. I started two articles, about Willi Schlamm and Kenneth Goff, who both had extensive writings and influence within the Right, because I kept coming across their names. But I could find little about them. TFD (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe several editors have some severe confusion here. I'm not suggesting you have to cite Rothbard's LvMI colleages if they make statements like "Rothbard was awesome and he was the bestest economist ever". What should be cited and summarized is a unbiased summary of Rothbard's work (e.g. for the gold standard). This was on the Wiki until it was slowly destroyed. Since Rothbard's work is available free on mises.org, citing Rothbard's work does not mean we use positive opinion statements from mises.org economists. Here is a mainstream citation http://www.cnbc.com/id/48806186 "Rothbard is the person most responsible for keeping the idea of the gold standard alive during its years of neglect and disrespect by mainstream economists." How is it the mainstream press can cite Rothbard as the person "most responsible for keeping the idea of the gold standard alive", yet his wikipedia editors fail to mention even once anything on the gold standard? In fact, the editors DELETED all references to the gold standard, among other notable works. Also, there is severe hypocrisy when an editor insists on citing LewRockwell.com for a quote on Lew's opinion about Rothbard's views when they can be taken in a negative light. However, for all other citations, Lew Rockwell and the LvMI are anathema. What gives? Can we only cite Lew Rockwell and the LvMI when the context will be interpreted as negative by a casual reader? Also, why are Gary North, Ron Paul, and Hans Hoppe then only ones influenced by Rothbard? Perhaps because these are only individuals who may be known to have said something controversial in their careers? What about Rockwell, Raico, Salerno, Stringham, Tucker, Long, Murphy, Woods, Kinsella, Nozick, Molyneux, Thornton, Horton, Raimondo, DiLorenzo, Huerta de Soto, Block, Higgs, LeFevre? What about Rothbard's intellectual influences he repeatedly cites in his work? What about Aristotle, Aquinas, Böhm-Bawerk, Hazlitt, La Boétie, Burke, Grotius, Chodorov, Hayek, Wilder Lane, Laozi, Locke, Mencken, Menger, Mises, Molinari, Nock, Oppenheimer, Rand, Say, Schumpeter, Spencer, Spooner, Tucker, Turgot, Harper, Nagel, Stigler?

SpokAnCap (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, you are welcome to remove any material from the article which is sourced solely to an LvMI publication. Likewise, you are welcome to add any material to the article which is well-sourced per WP:V and WP:RS and which follows WP:NPOV. — goethean 14:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Spoke, I think you misunderstand the nature of this community. We are strongly discouraged from adding sections solely drawn from primary sources. Primary sources are used, but as a complement to secondary sources. For a good example of this, see the "race, civil rights and racialist science" section, where Rothbard's anti-MLK and pro-"racialist" science views are discussed using primary sources, but are also mentioned in secondary sources. Rothbard did have all of these long works on economics, but if you can't find any mainstream scholar who took it seriously, it's going to be difficult to add a discussion of them to the article. The "old" Wikipedia entry of Rothbard was appallingly biased, and featured massive OR, with basically all of its sourced claims deriving from Mises Institute colleagues and close personal friends. The fact is he is much more well known for his polemics and political theories than his "economics". Steeletrap (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I started writing a response, but it amounted to saying what Steeletrap and goethean had, only not as well. MilesMoney (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you can follow talk page guidelines just like everybody else does. Please do not 'insert' your comments above those of someone else, out of chronological order.

Regarding your assertion that Rothbard is "much more well known for his polemics and political theories" than as an economist, I hold that you have demonstrated no interest in looking for the latter, only an interest in looking for the former. This colors your view. I have repeated brought valid secondary and third-party sources to this talk page but you have never used them. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you really believe that, I recommend that you look for some coverage of his views on economics from sources outside of the LvMI bubble? MilesMoney (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Bink, adding "insert" to comments is a norm of Wikipedia. It allows for direct response to old comments on a thread even after the discussion has continued. (Quite the opposite of what you said, adding "insert" helps other users by letting them now that this comment was made out of the usual chronological order.) Users carolmoore and srich have also done "inserts" on this same talk page alone.

In your partial deletion of another user's post, it is you who violate talk page rules, as well as the code of conduct outlined in WP:Competence. The good news is that I am more than willing to mentor you, especially as regards WP:Competence. Shoot me an email and we can discuss this in private. Steeletrap (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You must not be paying attention. Look again at my posts from 4–5 October and from 23 August. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Everybody has had a chance to see your citations and review your arguments for Rothbard as notable economist. Your sources and your view of Rothbard have not been accepted by most editors here -- in other words, few editors accept your assertion that you've presented valid sources which support your view. If Rothbard were a notable economist there would be many, many citations of and discussions of his work in mainstream peer-reviewed economic publications. When we search for such citations or for Rothbard's own work in such publications, we see sporadic contributions which were sharply criticized and rejected by the community of economists. Murray's documented contributions -- cited by mainstream media and independent parties -- were in other areas: These were, namely, social, political and political polemic and organizing, and the promotion of his anarcho-capitalist and paleo-libertarian movements. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether my citations were actually examined is doubtful. Please select at least one from my posts 4–5 October and comment on some part of it specifically. Your argument about "most editors here" is simply argumentum ad populum, not a rebuttal of what the source says or even a comment on its quality. If someone has an actual observation to make about the content of the sources I brought forward, I will listen to that. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If your view were valid, you'd see many editors commenting here in support of it. But we don't see that. This is not fallacious, ("argumentum ad populum") it's just a fact. That's how WP works. To be frank, you're trying to go beyond your area of competence on matters relating to economics and social theory and it's worth considering whether that can be productive. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, your favorite argument for when you run out of good material: competence. If you were so competent and I was so not-competent, you would have been able to say a few appropriately dismissive things about the sources I brought. You said nothing. Whatever competence you have acquired is not being used here, so that puts you on lesser footing.

Your continued push on the argumentum ad populum lever is not going to engage any gears. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed two weeks ago that you had no comeback to my lengthy 13kb post at the Hoppe talk page, nor did you have anything to say about my subsequent 2kb addition and changes to the article text. This despite your attention to the article regarding other issues. I do precious little article editing in the general topic area because I do not wish to waste my time with research if all my summary prose composition will be reverted. However, if I determine to put some effort into this article, it will be of the same level of work you saw at Hoppe, where there was no question about my competence.

Competence is demonstrated, not claimed or denied by assertion. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly; you need to demonstrate it. Start by picking a single source that you believe we should accept. MilesMoney (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to select any of the sources I brought forward on 4–5 October. After that you can work backward through the long list. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Duking it in

We have a reliable source for Duke being an inspiration to Rothbard. This source is Rothbard, who says:

Therefore, the proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of "right-wing populism," that is: to expose and denounce this unholy alliance, and to call for getting this preppie-underclass-liberal media alliance off the backs of the rest of us: the middle and working classes.

In context, Rothbard is saying that Duke's strategy is the strategy Rothbard and his allies should be taking. I'd call that inspiration. MilesMoney (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Too weak to be called an "influence". I think you and Steeltrap are clearly non-neutral here; you have an agenda to tar Rothbard by association with Duke. I don't see that so much with SPECIFICO; be interested to know what he/she thinks. --Trovatore (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what basis you're offering for your conclusion. MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument made by MilesMoney appears to count as original research. I will repeat my point made above in the former section discussion this, that the "influences" section should primarily be used for the typical academic influences that are widely recognized by researchers of the subject. It's not common to include "influence" sections in infoboxes for politicians for instance. It is also my general view that infoboxes should only contain pretty basic, uncontested information. Things that are in dispute or need nuances or context should be in the article proper, not in the infoboxes. MilesMoney should pay attention to the fact that there was no consensus for inclusion when this was discussed a number of days ago. Starting a new headline does not any consensus make and he should stop edit warring this in without consensus. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research. We need a reliable source putting this connection together. Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We have reliable secondary sources. This Reason article (1) notes that Rothbard cited Duke's "right-wing populism" and political campaigns as a "model" for the paleo-libertarian movement. That's a major influence. Steeletrap (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that influence is clear even from primary sources, so some editors imagine that only primary sources support the existence of influence here. That's simply not the case. MilesMoney (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To include an influence in an infobox, the influence should be widely recognized and discussed in an academic setting; the infoboxes are for noting core feature of the article subect, something that all or the major biography/ies of the subject will mention as important. It shouldn't be based on random articles or sentences that some Wikipedians find. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Reason, not Random. The fact that Rothbard was inspired by Duke's populism is extremely relevant. It is indeed a core feature. MilesMoney (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having Duke in the box. We do not need RS saying verbatim "X was influenced by Y" to put Y in X's infobox. The categories are in the template, for better or for worse, and it's clear that "Rothbard was influenced by Duke" is supported by RS. Anyway why does it matter that Murray took a page from Duke? Why is that of particular concern? Rothbard took an eclectic approach to his writing and to the promotion of his movement. Whereas some writers are original thinkers and others are contributors to an established mainstream tradition, there are those like Rothbard who pick and choose from others' work to cobble together their own statement. Rothbard had a facile mind and was able to assimilate lots of work from a variety of sources and to observe the people and institutions around him. He made good use of what he found in these influences, and with his flair for writing and "controversialist" personality (per RS) he built his movement. His insight into the role of Duke's populist appeal was seminal to the Paleo movement. What's the problem here? I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again. The infobox is for essential and widely recognized facts about a person. Having an infobox about "influence" is not at all a given in the first place - consider the infobox disputes regarding classical music that the ArbCom just had a ruling on, even though the common facts in facts in classic music is generally much more straightforward than "influences" - and non-essential or disputed information shall clearly not be in an infobox. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody can credibly dispute it because the sources are very clear on the matter. We have secondary sources pointing at Rothbard's own words, which are unambiguous. Trying to dispute inclusion on the basis that there's dispute is circular. Essentially, your argument seems to come down to the idea that we shouldn't mention this solely because you don't want us to. This is not particularly persuasive. MilesMoney (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To have reliable sources for a statement is in itself not enough to warrant an inclusion in an infobox. The information must be essential; and for an "influences" section that means be be widely recognized and covered in the major sources on the subject. This is not the case about Murray/Duke. Like I said; the whole "influences" section in the infobox is in itself debatle; if you look at the article of MLK there is no such "influences" infobox and that is in fact commmon for political figures. Nor, is there any influences section in David Duke's article. The "influences" boxes are mostly used for certain academics/artists etc, where influences are extensively covered by academics. The sources you have provided for Murray/Duke are one or two and lightweight in an academic sense (and also questionable as your starting quote here, which is OR). Iselilja (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If I were the one who found this quote, you could claim it's original research. Instead, we found secondary sources that pointed us at it, so we use this quote because it explains Rothbard's views in his own words. This is all perfectly normal.

For example, this mentions Rothbards "infatuation" with Duke and links to a Triple-R pamphlet that is an additional primary source (on page 5).

I'm not going to look at every article on Wikipedia to see how they handle their Influences infobox entry, because I don't need to. We have sources showing that Duke is as much an influence as the five we currently mention. MilesMoney (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If the other that are named as influences are listed on similar shaky ground, then we should remove the whole "influence" section in the infobox. Murray may not have attracted enough scholarly analysis to warrant an "influences" box. Iselilja (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Iselilja. What sort of source do you intend by "scholarly analysis" in this determination? Not all influence is scholarly influence, or am I misunderstanding your point? Clearly, according to RS, Duke and the nascent southern populism changed the course of Rothbard's career and I would say it's to Murray's credit that he grasped the significance of Duke's achievement. Hindsight shows us that Rothbard got in on the ground floor of what's grown to be the Tea Party movement going mainstream in American life. The quick-minded Rothbard was years ahead of others such as Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and even Ron Paul in this regard. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems rather thinly supported. So far we have a secondary source, a magazine article about a different subject (Ron Paul's newsletters) that along the way mentions that Rothbard wrote an essay in which he discussed Duke as having done a good job appealing to a constituency that Rothbard also wanted to reach out to. That seems more like an illustration than an influence. If a Republican political consultant cited Barack Obama's 2008 campaign as a good example of how to get voter turnout, would you then list Obama as one of his "influences"? I wouldn't. The other secondary source is a blog post from the same magazine that links to the same essay by Rothbard. (To be precise, it links to an issue of Rothbards newsletter. If you look for where Duke's name appears, you'll discover it is the same essay that MilesMoney cited at the start of the thread.) None of this supports the idea that Duke "changed the course of Rothbard's career" (in the last three years of his life?) or otherwise constituted a major influence. If that's the extent of it, then I would say the listing should stay out. --RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not researching this very well. For example, page 5 does contain the same essay we talked about before, but as I pointed out, it also contains another mention of Duke in the previous article (which is in support of Buchannan). If you can't put in the time to do the research, your conclusions are of no use to us.

Your analogy is bad. Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform; would the Republican consultant endorse Obama's?

I could go on, but there's literally nothing left standing in your argument that needs to be knocked down. MilesMoney (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that we need more sources, but here's an interesting one: http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

The money quote is:

Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes.

Pretty clear, I think. Rothbard modeled his outreach program on Duke's successes. MilesMoney (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To mention someone is not the same as indicating influence. In the article about Buchanan you mention above, it is noted that Duke might run, and it describes Buchanan as a better alternative than Duke. That hardly suggests Duke as an influence. The article cited originally at least frames Duke in positive terms -- and even that isn't enough to say he was an influence. Finding evidence that a person said "X is doing a good job with this thing I want to do" or even "I like X" is not sufficient grounds to list X as an influence for that person. The Reason article says just what I said above: Rothbard used Duke as an illustration of how to do something. Considering that Duke didn't become prominent until Rothbard was in his 50s and had been engaged in political activity for decades, describing Duke as an "influence" isn't very intuitive. I would prefer strong sourcing to overcome that. What we've got so far wouldn't cut it even without that problem. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit there would be to repeating myself, so I'll just point out that your analysis is not compatible with a basic understanding of what the sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And, in the first you are absolutely true. No reason for any of us to repeat the arguments for the upteenth time. We have already discussed this in two large sections and there is no consensus to include Duke. So, time to stop this and find more constructive things to do. There seems in general to have been an incredibly amount of debate on this talk page recently leading to no notable improvement of the article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not suggesting that there's a consensus here to censor material from the article text which is sourced to RS references, are you? I don't see anything controversial here. I do agree infoboxes and other boxes are silly but as Rumsfeld says, we must fight with the army we have. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a disagreement over whether the content of the sources supports the specific claim that would be inserted. That's not censorship; it's a difference of opinion about how to interpret the material. --RL0919 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement without cause has little relevance. MilesMoney (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we agree to remove all the infobox influences, influenced and contributions? They're obviously prone to misinterpretation and just this single influence has used up an incommensurate amount of editor attention. Next, we'd need to find RS that supports Rothbard being influenced by Locke, which is dubious. Yes he read him and could toss out a few references. Rothbard bandied about Locke this-and-that, but I'd hardly say that Locke left a deep imprint on Murray's mind. Removing those 3 categories from the box would be fine with me. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit like cutting off a limb because it's itchy. Sure, if these lists are removed, there'll be nothing to argue about. But if the lists are removed, the benefits of having these lists is also lost. I personally find them informative. MilesMoney (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really edit very much on this article, so I'll leave the question of complete removal of these fields to the regulars. I'm not opposed to it. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize, but sometimes questions of influence and opposition are too complex for easy summary. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds correct to me, RL. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten that this was about the economist infobox. Now, whether he ought to have an economist infobox is perhaps debatable, but if we have one, then surely the "influences" stuff should be about economics. There is simply no way that any source supports the proposition that Duke influenced Rothbard as an economist; that's obvious and complete nonsense, and I trust that neither Miles nor Steeltrap will embarrass him/herself by saying otherwise.

Then you can say, well, the visible text on the box doesn't say it's about him as an economist, though it says "Austrian School" right up at the top. Taking that tack, it's still the case that the "Field" section lists economic history, economics, political economy, anarchism, and ethics. Certainly Duke is not an influence on Rothbard's view on any of the first four. The only one that's even worth discussing is "ethics". I would need to see a very strong source for the claim that Duke influenced Rothbard's views on ethics. The arguments that have been given support, at most, the claim that Duke influenced Rothbard on political strategy, and I don't really think Rothbard is especially notable as a political strategist. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Trovatore for sorting this out with clear thoughts. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

None of the figures under influences/influenced/opposed have anything to do with Rothbard's work as an "economist." Even the economists mentioned, rather than contributing to Rothbard's work/research as an economist, would be better described as objects of moral/political inspiration (whether positive, in the case of Locke, or negative, in he case of Keynes). Duke is a very organic fit on the influences list. Rothbard endorsed his entire political platform and cited him as a model for paleolibertarianism. Steeletrap (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason why an economist cannot be heavily influenced by a non-economist, such as Gandhi, or Thoreau, or Jesus, for example, and there's no good reason why such figures, if they are influential on a figure's thought, should not be listed in the infobox. As I've mentioned before, Wagner, the composer, is listed as an influence on the philosopher Nietzsche (correctly so), as well as are several poets. That said, I think that the sourcing is weak for adding David Duke as a primary influence on Rothbard. — goethean 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what might be the best way forward on this. Why don't we find a more general infobox template, one which does not unduly constrain the summary of MR's diverse contributions. I think that the point raised by Trovatore -- that the reader neither knows nor cares about the limitations of the template -- is key here. There's no reason not to include the full set of influences merely because, e.g. "economic history" is among MR's fields. We also list Historical Revisionism and Political Theory. Duke's influence is consistent with those entries. Trovatore, it's not political strategy, it's the strategy Duke and Rothbard used to build their constituencies of supporters, donors, advocates, and acolytes. Rothbard was among other things a promoter and he used Duke's strategy to promote his movement. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Friends, I understand your concerns. I contend that Duke (both substantively and stylistically) was a seminal influence on paleo-libertarianism, which was a crucial part of Rothbard's legacy (the RS calls him a "Model" for pale-libertarian outreach). However, I understand your concern with the inclusion of Duke in the infobox, since he did not inform or influence Murray's work as an "economist." However, nor did most of the other influences listed there. I think the original mistake was using the "economist" infobox to characterize the work of a guy who, while holding a Ph.D in econ, is notable for political polemics, theorizing and strategizing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly right. What we need is different infobox. MilesMoney (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am currently looking at Wikipedia's list of infoboxes (1) to find a better fit, and recommend you all do the same. A preliminary possibility for Rothbard and many of his friends and co-workers is the "organization" infobox (2), which would note Murray's affiliation with and work for the Mises Institute. This would be a great fit for many so called "Austrian economists" who have no standing in academia and are known only for books and lectures they've done for the Mises Institute. Still, I'm open to other, better ideas. Steeletrap (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox philosopher. — goethean 22:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox writer -- nice and simple. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The substantive problem here is the claim that "Duke [...] was a seminal influence on paleo-Libertarianism". Though I have no great sympathy for paleo, I think that's going too far. The sources that have been adduced talk about outreach strategy, which is misleading if you use that to count "influence" because the article is not primarily about Rothbard as a strategist, and one throw-away line about how there was nothing objectionable in one particular iteration of Duke's platform, which sounds mostly like Rothbard being a shit-stirrer and not an endorsement of his views in general. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard was, first and foremost, an evangelist for his brand of politics. Duke showed him how to reach the people with his message. MilesMoney (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The philosopher one fits pretty well. MilesMoney (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Trovatore - I'd state things a bit differently. I don't think Rothbard of the 1980s and 1990s had his views and then saw Duke as a model of promotion. I think Rothbard needed a base for himself after he was unable to sustain his relationship with his sponsors, the Kochs and Cato Institute. Rothbard, like Nixon before him and countless others, saw an opportunity in the disaffected, angry Southern constituency after Duke demonstrated how much support could be garnered by pleasing this group. Rothbard then re-worked his statements and theories to fit what Duke demonstrated would resonate with this emerging power base. So it's not that Rothbard sat in the Ivory Tower, struggled with his theory and then sought ways to publicize it. What RS tell us is that Rothbard the controversialist sought to sustain himself by cobbling together what appears to be scholarship by rehashing bits and pieces of rhetoric which he had reason to believe would advance his self-promotion. That's well documented throughout his career, starting with his courting of the Volker Fund. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine yarn but you have no reliable sources to support it. We cannot have it in the article because of the WP:No original research policy which is not up for debate. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing economist infobox

Rothbard clearly was an economist in the sense that he had a Ph.D in econ and taught economics (very low profile) institutions. But he is notable for his work as a libertarian and anarchist, not as a social scientist. Indeed, there is a tiny amount of RS material (and by "RS" I don't mean individuals employed by Rothbard's Mises Institute) on his work in mainstream economics, and the little we have is scathing, often ridiculing criticism. Therefore, I propose that we delete the "economist" infobox altogether, while noting that Rothbard made a living teaching econ and had a Ph.D. from Columbia. Steeletrap (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth finding a more suitable infobox template for MR, who was an author and promoter aka "controversialist" per RS."Author" might work. There's always "person" While we're at it remember the section on photos of MR is still open for comments mid-page on this page. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

He's important as a promoter of von Mises' strain of Austrianism, but not particularly for his own work in economics. He is, in general, more important as author, promoter and controversialist than he is for his day job. MilesMoney (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are the independent reliable sources I have at hand which list Murray Rothbard as primarily an economist.

Biographical Dictionary of American Economists, Thoemmes, 2006
Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2003. "Occupation: Economist"
New York Times, 1995. His obituary is titled "Murray N. Rothbard, Economist And Free-Market Exponent, 68"

This took me two or three minutes to pull together. With effort, I could find many more. Additionally he was a professor of economics at CCNY and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where he was S. J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics. The idea that he was not an economist leaves me dumbfounded. A bad economist, maybe, an obscure economist, perhaps, or maybe one who did little to contribute to his field, but still an economist. Gamaliel (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing against a position you clearly do not understand. The issue is not whether he was an economist, but whether that's the primary source of his notability. MilesMoney (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, these sources identify him "as primarily an economist". Additionally, I noted he held multiple academic positions as an economist. The evidence indicates that he was primarily noted as an economist. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, per RS and article text, Rothbard was an "instructor" at Brooklyn Polytech, not CCNY. Polytech was an engineering school that trained electricians to keep the NY Subways running, etc. At the Butt School his chair, with the naming stipulation, was paid for by a wealthy patron and the funding channeled through the University. Rothbard picked up this model from Mises, whose keep at NYU Business School was paid for by the Volker Fund. "Distinguished" indeed! Compare that to his enormous influence on the anarcho-capitalist movement, his legacy with politicians such as Ron and Rand Paul, and his founding of the libertarian Mises Institute. Economics was not his primary contribution. If it were his main contribution, this article's text would demonstrate that. The lede should reflect the tale of the text. In this case, it's not "economist." SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Authors Online says that he was "City College (now City College of the City University of New York), New York, NY, instructor in economics, 1948-49;" in addition to "Polytechnic Institute of New York, Brooklyn, NY, associate professor, 1966-74, professor of economics, 1974-86;". The lede should reflect reliable, independent sources, which indicate that he was an economist. If the article text does not establish this sufficiently, that is a deficiency of the article text that should be corrected. Gamaliel (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, Rothbard didn't even earn his PhD until 1956. Every first year graduate student in NY gets "instructor" gigs at CCNY, Rutgers, LIU, and the like. It is not an academic position and is entirely irrelevant here. Isn't it correct that the WP lede should reflect the article content? Rothbard is not presented here primarily as an economist. It was called "Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute" not "Polytechnic Institute of New York, Brooklyn, NY". Your source seems dicey. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Having been a college instructor myself, I know that it is in fact an academic position. It doesn't make one an economist by itself, certainly, but it's only irrelevant if he changed jobs after that position. In this case it was clearly the first in a number of academic positions in the field of economics. In regards to Contemporary Authors Online, it is a first rate source, used in thousands of libraries and universities. A small alleged error does not change that. I don't know a damn thing about economics, but it's my day job to know things like this, and I assure you that if you're going to attempt to disqualify my sources from that standpoint, you have no ground to stand on. As for the lede, it should reflect article content when article content is accurate, factually and proportionally. If it is not, then it is the article that must be changed, not the lede. Gamaliel (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you seem to be talking past us. Again, the issue isn't whether he was an economist, but what his primary source of notability is. Our sources show very clearly that it was his libertarian political writing, not his economics. Please speak to this instead of talking about other stuff. MilesMoney (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Above I have addressed this issue clearly and directly. If you don't want me to talk about other stuff, then ask other editors to refrain from bringing those things up in comments directed towards me. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The part that's missing is where you show that he's primarily notable for his academic work in economics as opposed to his political influence. That part doesn't actually exist. MilesMoney (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Economist, per Gamaliel's sources. The NYT obit really says it all: a general readership newspaper defines the man first and foremost as an economist. I care nothing for arguments about what year it was that Rothbard earned his PhD, or what was his academic work. All I care about are reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Why article has more critical than positive evaluations of Rothbard

Users who are (by their admission) uneducated in economics believe the greater weight accorded negative vs positive commentary in the article makes it non-neutral. In fact, it would be a violation of NPOV to present "equal time" to (fringe) pro and (mainstream) anti-Rothbard views. For Rothbard is a WP:Fringe economist whose Misesian methodology rejects the scientific method, and therefore tends to be ridiculed and dismissed by mainstream journals. Giving his primary sources and sources published by the Institute he founded equal weight to RS from peer-reviewed journals would be like giving creationism equal weight to evolutionism in a biology article.

Incidentally, Rothbard's followers agree with me on his fringe status, with Hans-Hermann Hoppe stating that the non-empirical, strictly deductive/a priori "Misesian" approach to economics embraced by Rothbard is regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" by all other economists (1) and Walter Block noting that mainstream journals refuse to even engage in discourse with Misesians (2).

However, those who disagree with me (and Rothbard's followers) are encouraged to search for positive evaluations of his contribution to economics. The catch is these have to be from mainstream sources who are not associated with the Mises Institute. Peer reviewed journals are the best place to start, though mainstream pop econ publications such as The Economist are also appropriate. I haven't been able to find any positive reception of Rothbard in mainstream discourse, but I encourage those who take a different view of this matter to look for them and add them to the article. None of the allegedly "biased editors" will object to the addition of pro-Rothbard content, but per WP policy, it has to be from an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I agree with your statement. I have scoured my library and other off-line and online resources to try to find peer-reviewed discussions of Rothbard's writings on economics. There is very little such material to be found. I've added a few, such as the discussion of Rothbard's AER article on equilibrium, but it's slim pickings. We should all consider that for editors with little training in economics who come here out of a general concern for improvement of WP articles in pursuit of NPOV, there's an inherent asymmetry. Without specialized training in economics, the most accessible tasks for such editors is to react to what is already in the article or what others have recently added to the article. But an editor who dislikes or mistrusts new content when added can only challenge it without having the resources or expertise to add different new content which they themselves discover. That process appears to have led to some of the frustration among editors here, for example when editors have found references which they mistakenly believed were RS. I hope that all editors will, to the extent of their interest and ability, bring new RS content to the article. That being said, however, none of us should take it personally if new material is questioned or disputed before the group reaches a consensus to include it. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This obviously is a response to my posting at WP:ANI " 'Extreme editor bias is the issue' with a bunch of WP:ANI and other noticeboard diffs to prove it" which reads in relevant part:

These editors use the fact that many articles have been sourced with too many primary sources as an excuse to search out and add overwhelmingly negative and inflammatory secondary source material. However, they challenge neutral and positive information from other secondary sources with nonsense rationales which one must discuss and often bring to noticeboards, over and over again - a huge disincentive to constructive editing. (See related April to August discussions on the Jesus Huerta de Soto and Murray Rothbard talk pages). Also they misuse the article on links called WP:Walled garden, as well as off-Wikipedia interpretations of the concept, as a means of sabotaging perfectly good WP:RS information from academics who have even the loosest of affiliations with the Mises Institute. See this WP:RSN discussion.) These editors' biased and disruptive edit warring has angered a number of editors who have either dropped out of Wikipedia or, like myself, stopped editing articles where those editors are active..."

Funny we haven't discussed this behavioral guideline yet: Wikipedia:Gaming the system. User:Carolmooredc 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc - Glad to see you agreeing with me/us here. Please add some new RS content. That would be great. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So you agree with the conclusion of my comment on the ANI thread: I believe Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and MilesMoney should be topic banned from all Austrian economics (and libertarianism-related) articles, especially Biographies of living or dead individuals. Great! User:Carolmooredc 00:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Steeletrap continues to ignore the positive accounts of Rothbard that can be found if the desire to find them is present. As well, Steeletrap continues to ignore the accounts which describe Rothbard as being an important figure but which also critique his views. I have pointed out some of the available sources in past threads but Steeletrap appears to have no wish to use them in the article.

More importantly, Steeletrap in this thread is advocating that we approach the biography of one man as if it were an article about various ideologies. This is a misplaced concern. At the ideology articles, the mainstream views should be given priority. However, at the biography of one man, his views should be given priority. An extreme example of this is the David Icke biography which mentions his claim that Queen Elizabeth is a lizard-alien. We would never put such a fringe view into the Queen Elizabeth article, or even the article on the British throne or the royal house, but such fringe views are part and parcel of what makes Icke famous. Here at the Rothbard article we must cover all of those things about him which made him famous. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a RS which states that Murray was famous. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So it was not just Steeletrap who was ignoring my suggested sources in past threads. Here are some prior gems:

UT Dallas professor Peter Lewin writes that Rothbard is one of the most influential theorists on the concept of the pure time preference theory of interest. Lewin lists Rothbard as being part of a series of important papers starting with Boehme-Bawerk in 1959, Mises in '66, Rothbard in '70, then Fetter in '77. Lewin says that Fetter's paper acknowledged the importance of Rothbard in forming Fetter's own view. See pages 102–3 of Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, ISBN 0203440706
Karen I. Vaughn is no friend of Rothbard's but she says helped build the new Austrian School in the USA "for several years" after the South Royalton conference but then he split from Kirzner and Lachmann. She says "Rothbard was instrumental in founding the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Review of Austrian Economics..." See page 139 of Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition ISBN 0521637651. On page 93 she says Mises lecturing in New York would not have made much impact except "for two students who were academically talented and who were determined to bring Austrian insights into the [American] public arena: Murray Rothbard and Israel Kirzner." On page 99 she writes about "Rothbard's immense influence" in launching the Austrian revival of the early 1970s, that "Rothbard became a beacon to a host of young undergraduate and graduate students during those rebellious times." On page 113 she writes that Rothbard "dominated" the topic of money in the 1978 conference volume New Directions in Austrian Economics, edited by Louis M. Spadaro.
Mark Skousen describes Rothbard on page 412 of his book Economic Logic. Skousen casts Rothbard as a very important and influential figure in the study of money and the commercial banking system. Skousen lays it on pretty darn thick, starting with "Rothbard was the premier libertarian economist of the 20th century." He says Rothbard was highly influential as an economist, historian and as a theorist of natural law, a part of the Austrian School. Skousen says Rothbard made important contributions to the understanding of free market economics and the gold standard. With all this praise, you would think Skousen was affiliated with Rothbard's group of cronies, but this turns out not to be the case. Skousen publishes in mainstream presses.
Thierry Aimar writes that it was Rothbard and Kirzner who inspired a whole new generation of American economists in the Austrian School. Aimar traces the "first" Austrian tradition to scholars such as Menger and Wieser, then a second "neo-Austrian" tradition "organised around the works of Mises and developed by colleagues and successors such as Hayek, Lachmann, Kirzner and Rothbard." Aimar holds Rothbard in the same high regard as Hayek, Lachmann and Kirzner. The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination, ISBN 1781007810

There are more sources than this, some which I have already listed in previous threads, and some which have not yet been brought to this article. Unfortunately, I am short of time and cannot do all the legwork right now. I expect others to pick up the slack. That means you, Steeletrap and Specifico. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You do't have time to edit the article, you only have time to post sources and you expect other editors to use your preferred sources (rather than their preferred sources) to write the article. But you do have time to carry on lengthy talk page conversations accusing these editors of violating Wikipedia policy. Here's an idea: why don't you contribute to the article rather than telling other editors which sources they are allowed to use? — goethean 16:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You noticed of course that I said I was short on time right now. I did not say I will never contribute text and references to the article itself. I contributed in that manner on the Hoppe biography. I expect I will work on this article some time in the future. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] If that's the best you can do, I'm disappointed and discouraged. The Vaughn source says Murray was smart and helped popularize the ideas of Mises; this has nothing to do with his substantive contributions to economic research. Skousen is a fringe economist connected to Rothbard's Institute; see, for instance, his lecture condemning mainstream "modern economics" given at the Mises Institute. (1) I also find it strange that despite your insistence that your sources are so superb, that you have never even attempted to add them to this article, despite your spending ample daily time on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Vaughn acknowledges Rothbard's large influence and she makes a point of rebutting a number of his various positions rather than ignoring them. That's the thing; Rothbard's ideas have excited comment even when the comment is negative. Mark Skousen is a notable economist who has commented about Rothbard. You cannot conclude he is too closely connected to the Alabama Misesians because he spoke at one of their conferences. His publishers are various mainstream imprints, not Mises. I have not yet attempted to add them to this article because it needs far more work than that, and I anticipate that the time I spend working on this article will likely be wasted because of trivial reverts and obstructionist arguments. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Binkster - Please just answer the question I asked. Find a RS which says Rothbard was/is famous. We can take it from there if you find one. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You are picking nits. I wrote the word "famous" one time when the whole time I was talking about the importance of Rothbard. You focus on fame when importance is on the table. Why? Because you cannot win an argument against Rothbard's importance but you can win an (unimportant) argument against his fame. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Binkster - Since you're indisposed, I'll just say a little more for you to chew on when you return. You don't understand this subject matter. You've stipulated that, and it shows in every post you make attempting to discuss it. Did you know that Bohm-Bawerk died before World War 1? Did you know that Frank Fetter died some time in the 1940s when Rothbard was still in school? Did you know that the "pure time preference theory of interest" is rejected by virtually all economists today except for the doctrinaire Rothbardian Mises Institute Austrians? You can't come to a project like WP and just google and gargle with the facts. It doesn't work.

@Binkster - Having said that, however, making errors of fact or misunderstanding what you read is not a critical failure. There are many other editors here who can work with and sort through your ideas and suggestions. The critical failure arises when, knowing that your grasp of the subject matter is weak, you persist in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PA directed at other editors. It's no good. If you'd drop the hostile and disruptive behavior, your layman's interest in these subjects could well prove to be helpful. It's really your choice. SPECIFICO talk 04:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. The point here is to show the importance of Rothbard which I have done. You continually try to knock him down, to make his contribution look like a small one. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Asserting that Rothbard heavily influenced a man who died before he was born and a man who who died when Rothbard was in his early 20s does not establish anything other than your (admitted) lack of WP:COMPETENCE with respect to economics. I actually have grown to think you are a smart and competent editor generally, Bink, but you are out of your element here. Declaring this WP:Fringe page non-neutral is a product of your lack of experience on econ. Steeletrap (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Where LvMI fellows are acceptable RS

1) Describing, without evaluating, Murray's views and work on economics. (However, the LvMI fellows' evaluations of Rothbard's views on/contributions to economics (derived from the premise that Rothbard is the most important economist ever) are WP:Fringe and cannot be given equal weight, per WP:NPOV.)

2) Anything related to anarcho-capitalism, including evaluative and descriptive content. They are the mainstream of anarcho-capitalism theory, and are entitled to opine on who does and does not uphold that theory adequately. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe says, "there would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard." Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The guideline appears to be "Fringe theories". If there is not substantial description of his economic theories in mainstream sources, then we should only briefly outline them, based on how historians and sociologists have done. Why can't we just say he promoted an extreme form of economic liberalism, without elaborating it in detail? TFD (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In his book, The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers (M. E. Sharpe, 2009, p. 390), Skousen has a brief section on Rothbard, which may be useful.[1] Because of the publisher, this book meets rs and probably provides as good a summary of Rothbard's economic views as can be found. TFD (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Although it is a former colleague/fellow traveler, it's also an RS, so we can use it. I tried to parse the praise of Rothbard, and the note about his lack of influence on mainstream discourse (/publications/etc), down to one sentence each. But feel free to add more if you think it's necessary. In terms of the substantive economic thought of Rothbard, there is not much in the book, but there is some, which I will add later. Steeletrap (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Why are we using Kevin D. Williamson's editorial in the National Review[2] as a source for this article?[3] This is a writer who wonders about Obama's birth certificate. TFD (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Correction of OP Though Williamson has repeatedly published pieces about birtherism, he is no birther, and writes about birthers with ridicule and contempt. (1) (2) Since OP's concern about the source is predicated on a false premise, I think we should hat this sub-section. Steeletrap (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an intra-conservative debate, where Williamson's views are taken seriously. — goethean 20:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is that even in there? Rothbard has been accused of being everything nasty under the sun (except being Jewish, which is actually true). Maybe Rothbard was a pedophile too, I'm sure there accusations along that line can be found. As he was mainly writing polemical articles, this is to be expected. I don't see the relevance of upgrading the "Holocaust denier" accusation to first level status. 2001:7E8:C625:6A01:221:6BFF:FE0C:2084 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Many of the most serious so-called accusations, such as his admiration for David Duke's political platform, come from simply directly quoting the man's own published words. — goethean 15:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppet Solicitation

Note the following page appeared in Economic Policy Journal on September 28, soliciting meatpuppets to this article. Several new Users showed up soon thereafter, in some cases working on content identified in the solicitation. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Several new Users" – who? – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI?

Please take this to relevant noticeboard (COIN) if you want to pursue it. Iselilja (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)]]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have been alerted by a fellow editor who has had a longterm editing relationship with User:Carolmooredc, spanning many years, that she may have a WP:COI. Here (1), she refers to Rothbard as "one of her early co-conspirators" and here (2(2) she is described as a former "colleague" of Rothbard's. Per WP:COS, I would kindly remind Carol that "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person (such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." She should disclose that connection. Normally this would of course be none of our business, but per policy, she made it our business by editing the page of her "early co-conspirator" nearly 200 (3) times. Steeletrap (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the described connection falls within that description. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If Steeletrap thinks it's a problem, bring it to WP:COIN. Otherwise it's just more harassment. Knowing someone 30 years ago (who you later had a falling out with) is hardly a COI. Someone pointing that out in a tweet is nothing. I have lots of criticisms of Rothbard myself, but I don't soapbox about them and I either haven't had those specific criticisms or haven't bothered to bring them here like I haven't bothered to bring a lot of neutral info because of the POV editing steeletrap and specifico have engaged in. For details see: early examples of their POV rants vs. Rothbard related Austrians, plus lots of nasty things they've said here, not to mention the WP:Attack POV of almost all their edits. Extreme POV editors usually are the most destructive.User:Carolmooredc 19:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, thank you for stating that you knew Rothbard and had a falling out with him. Can you please be more specific? This would indeed be unreasonable in normal circumstances, but you are one of the most prolific editors for his Wikipedia page. In entering this community and editing the article, you have forfeited your right not to disclose your connection to Rothbard.

Also North, please note that the description is incredibly broad, and refers to any personal connection. Family and co-workers are just examples, and are not meant to be exhaustive (hence the remarkably flexible "some other relationship" example). Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to the Wikipedia policy that says editors have "forfeited" their "right" to non-disclosure by editing? To me this looks like a supercilious demand. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This thread has nothing to do with article improvement. If COI (or POV) is an issue, the concern should be brought up on the WP:ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually it belongs at WP:COIN. Of course, one can feel free to look for this new york times article or any current link on "Exchange on Gandhi between Carol Moore and Murray Rothbard", Libertarian Forum, July-August 1983. I think mises.org carries the whole thing. Didn't find in title search. Probably a jpg or something. FYI we collaborated on a couple events in 1980 and then just saw each other every few months at public events in NYC til I left in 1982 for LA. Then just a few more times at national events before he died in 1995. User:Carolmooredc 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)