Talk:Walter Block/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Twice publicly admonished by college's president

For making empirical claims without evidence. See here and here. This should probably go in the article, as it is highly atypical. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there are two sides to each story: Tom Woods. Fortunately, WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL will motivate editors to evaluate the RS dispassionately and present it properly. – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There also has been considerable controversy in response to Block's remark to the New York Times that, apart from its being involuntary, slavery in the U.S. "was not so bad -- you pick cotton and sing songs". Block claims to have been libeled and taken out of context, though he concedes he said the quoted phrase. Dozens of faculty members at his university have called for his censure. Block has responded by threatening to sue the New York Times. Despite his previous writings against defamation law, he claims that such a suit would be compatible with libertarian principles because the Times is a "major mouthpiece for the state."

Block's threat has been mocked in the media, since he was quoted accurately.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

All this should be added to the article immediately -- the NYT piece, admonition by his colleagues and Loyola U Pres for making claims without evidence, Block's response, the claim of libel and threatened lawsuit, etc. Steeletrap (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not be added immediately. WP is WP:NOTNEWS. We also have to consider the blog aspects of this dispute. Give the brew-ha-ha time to resolve, and then we can describe the dispute with some perspective. – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: are you suggesting that Woods' self-published blog is RS to use as a source for statements about Block in Block's WP:BLP? SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, of course not. (You've never known me to make such a suggestion.) The Woods piece serves to alert editors to look more closely at this controversy. – S. Rich (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that his colleague at the Mises Institute is the only voice taking Blocks side is hardly alerting us to anything new. There's also no reason to table this merely because it's recent. We should not give it undue emphasis in the article, but it is noteworthy and an appropriately sourced section of appropriate tone and length can go in the article now. Would you like to draft such an edit? SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

These remarks, sadly, illustrate a poor analysis of the contentious material. Wildes writes as if Block had made the remarks himself in the NYT piece. In fact, we have Tananhaus' quip and one sentence which Tananhaus attributes to Block (without citation) – but we have no context with which to evaluate Block's "remarks". To be accurate, Wildes should have said "Tananhaus says that Block said...". (The fact that Tananhaus has provided the quips is not mentioned by Wildes. Indeed, the Block stuff is but one tangential paragraph in the much longer piece about Rand Paul.) Do the Wildes letters directly support the contention that Block said this stuff? No. (What is WP going to say? "According to Wildes, Tananhaus said that Block said ....") Next, but less importantly, Wildes is submitting letters to the editor. This makes them problematic in terms of SPS/NEWSBLOG. Op-Ed pieces can be used with caution, but reader letters "to the editor" are not. Thirdly, we have Block himself contradicting the assertions by Wildes and offering an olive branch because of the misunderstanding. So, overall, this is contentious BLP material. And as I said earlier, there is no need to immediately put this stuff into the Project, if at all. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Rich, we would include Block's claim that the comment was taken out of context and that he was "defamed." However, Block did say the quoted remarks, as he himself concedes. If you ask me, Block is committing a straw-man fallacy in his op-ed; no one accused him of favoring slavery. They objected to his belief that slavery was "not so bad" apart from its being involuntary. This ignores sociological factors such as racism, in favor of a narrow and naive conception of libertarian "freedom." (such naivete and dogmatism is showcased in Block's support for the 'right' of Woolsworth to ban blacks from its lunch counters. As Richard Epstein, an eminent legal scholar (and libertarian) at NYU has noted, segregation was a highly-valued consumer good in the South, and the gov was necessary to desegregate. Block either is ignorant of this or doesn't care, because his floating abstraction ("Non-Aggression Principle") must always take precedent over the real world.))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

These remarks from The Maroon are not acceptable RS. (And please don't take my opening comment as an endorsement that Wildes' comments are acceptable. I'm saying his comments must be evaluated.) His letters to the editor of the student run newspaper are repeats of repeated comments from the NYT and do NOT directly support anything encyclopedic. It doesn't matter if Block "concedes" he said the words. The words cannot be taken/quoted out of context and be used in Wikipedia. The suggestion that we repeat Wildes' repeat of Tananhaus' repeat and add them to the article is appalling. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We also have Block's LewRockwell.com article on the matter. It is not unfair to quote the New York Times and Block's university president/colleagues if we cover Block's response. It's a bonafide controversy, which like the previous one regarding the wage gap, revolves around accusations of poor scholarship. Steeletrap (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to consider LR.Com, or Block's Maroon comment, or various other rebutal letters because Wildes' comments, from the get-go, is not acceptable Wikipedia material. Nor is Tananhaus' "quotation" of Block because we do not see the context in which the original comments were made. – S. Rich (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This borders on tendentious editing. We have Block's response; we can present the full context of the quote as he saw it. The NYT is RS. The scandal is notable. All of this meets notability and RS muster and would improve the article. Steeletrap (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Writeup in NYT opinion piece

In this edit, the New York Times opinion piece (IMO, not article) and related articles/material has been removed. As this article is a BLP and subject to Sanctions, I suggest that editors wishing to restore the material or remove the material state their ground here IOT meet their WP:BURDEN. (The Discussion phase of BRD is now open.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my removal of this material put in by Steeletrap. Problems with this material was discussed from every angle ad nauseam 6 weeks ago in Arbitration, where Steeletrap wrote here: "I have no desire to insert this in the Block article." But here it is. Problems:

• This section doesn't summarize sources as much as it synthesizes an argument against Block from the source. How many times have we referred editors to WP:Synth to understand this difference? How many times have we tediously explained it?
• "and for no other reason." WP:OR that assumes that the Times reporters accurately conveyed all the reasons that Block discussed.

There is a way to present the material in an NPOV and accurate way, including other comments that Block has written to give it a full and balanced presentation according to BLP and NPOV, but this is not it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Srich, it's not up to your "opinion" to call a NY Times story written by staff reporters in the news section, an "an opinion piece" -- as if even Times editorials are not fact checked. WP takes a dim view of removal of RS sourced content, and you should not be removing it without consensus. Your usual claims of bad sourcing or misinterpretation do not apply here. Perhaps you're too accustomed to asserting them and didn't stop to consider your action. I urge you to reinstate the content and take NY Times to RSN if you so choose. 23:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is simply mine. I'm not saying the piece should be described as an op-ed. (And Tanenhaus is a writer-at-large, not staff – but, like my opinion, that is a minor point.) It was Steeletrap who first added the material and Carolmooredc who removed it. I opened the BRD to discuss the material. So, if Steeletrap feels it should be included, Steeletrap should speak up. We already have something from Carolmooredc, who says SYNTH & "fallacious and defamatory interpretation bordering...." [edit summary]. Well, to continue the discussion, the problem with the WP segment is the combination of quotes & paraphrases that serve to put Block in a bad light. It started "A January 2014 article in the New York Times noted that Block opposed slavery because it was involuntary. However, the Times piece also quoted him as saying, apart from its involuntary nature, slavery was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”" Just who is adding the "However" and why? We have editors picking out material from material that has already been cherry-picked. As stated from get-go of this subjection, editors who wish to add this material should justify it. – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Srich, one of the most fundamental principles of editing WP is that we do not remove well-sourced factual content. The sourcing of this small bit of content was as good as it gets. Fact-checked NY Times article. You deleted the text based on your "IMO" opinion. You should put it back. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we remove sourced content all the time, even when it is well-sourced and factual. WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE and WP:BLPFIGHT are reasons to remove IOT achieve NPOV. In this case we have a problem with verification. That is, the NYT piece paints Block in a pro-slavery/anti-desegregation light, which Block forcefully denies. (Therefore, can we use it to say or imply that Block is pro-slavery/anti-desegregation? No. Is it up to us to parse out which version is correct? No.) Because this is a BLP, we must steer clear of this contentious material. It qualifies as poorly sourced because it is denied by Block (and others) and is tangential material (as the NYT piece is about Rand Paul). My opinion about the piece as an opinion piece is not relevant – I removed it because we have been in the Discussion phase of BRD. I will not put it back until we have a consensus to keep it. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Times piece makes clear that Block opposes slavery but favors the right to segregate. While Block claims to have been quoted out of No non-affiliated sources have questioned the accuracy of the report, and the Times fact-check team did not redact or modify the quotation despite Block's prompting (which anyone who reads the Times knows they are good about doing). We also publish Block's claim that he was quoted out of context. We reiterate his opposition to slavery, which (per his own words) he only opposes because of the non-aggression principle; we also emphasize his support for the right to segregate along racial lines. Inside Higher Ed has also covered the story. We have multiple, high-quality RS and it's disappointing that you insist on cleansing it from the article just because it's politically incorrect. Block's views on slavery and segregation are implied by the non-aggression principle. There is nothing wrong with those views. Block is not bashful about expressing them. Please revert your removal of this amply well-sourced material. Steeletrap (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. The material was Boldly added, and it was Reverted. I did not do the first reversion. But I did open the Discussion. Well, without participation in the Discussion, the material was Boldly added again, and I Reverted. In any event, the Discussion is continuing. But to characterize my editing as "cleansing" does not help in the discussion. Even so, as per the policies & guidance cited above (BLPFIGHT, etc), the material is problematic. While the NYT piece talks about Rand Paul, the only explicit mention of Block by name is found when it partially quotes (twice) his "...not so bad..." statement. (This very selective direct attribution has the makings of a hatchet-job on Block.) The way the NYT is presented is problematic in another aspect. The second sentence starts off with "However,...". Per WP:EDITORIALIZING – "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.". These problems indicate the piece needs re-writing rather than simple reinstatement. – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to drop the term "however", though I am baffled as to how you think it is being put to nefarious use in this context. So we have settled on the following version: "A January 2014 article in the New York Times noted that Block opposed slavery because it was involuntary. The Times piece also quoted him as saying, apart from its involuntary nature, slavery was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”" Then we have Block's reply and then we have the Inside Higher Ed report.

If you think he's being misrepresented, why not just expand on Block's response? Surely if the 'libel' is as clear cut as the paleo-libertarians (as opposed to the journalists) say it is, presenting Block's arguments in the article will exonerate him. However, there is no policy-based justification for purging reliably-sourced, noteworthy material from the article. I am concerned that your political affinity for Block, rather than policy, is guiding your editing of the article. Steeletrap (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think we've settled on any version. 1. CMDC may want to comment, but may be observing the voluntary TBAN until the ArbCom is resolved. 2. The BLPFIGHT issues are not addressed. 2.a. Consider, what does the NYT piece really come down to? Block is a libertarian, and as such opposes slavery. (But the NYT cherry-picked a bit of his discussion to make it seem like he's a hypocrite.) 2.b. Block, as a libertarian, also dislikes government interfering with personal associations, and so he "oppose[s] Jim Crow laws that barred people from serving black and white people at the same counter....." But is this aspect the InsideHigher piece included? No. Instead the piece characterizes him as someone "who defends segregation". 3. There is no way to present this material in a non-slanted/NPOV manner. NYT gets reduced to "Block opposes slavery" and Inside gets reduced to "Block opposes government action to enforce segregation or desegregation." 4. Wow, what a NPOV/Balanced insight into the thinking of a libertarian! – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Where oh where is the misrepresentation? Block is against slavery, but only because it's involuntary. For Block, the life of a slave is 'not so bad' insofar as being over-worked and subject to racism does not violate the non-aggression principle. The only problem with slavery -- the reason Block is such a vociferous opponent of it -- is that the slaves could not quit. As for segregation, racial or otherwise, of course Block defends the right to practice it. He believed that Woolsworth was in the right in excluding blacks from its lunch counters. This makes sense if you understand the non-aggression principle, and how the civil rights activists who were 'sitting in' violated it. The non-aggression principle implies the absolute legitimacy of segregation so long as it is not government imposed, as the Jim Crow laws were. Property owners can discriminate as much as they want in the free society. (see Hoppe on this) Why are you afraid of these positions?

And libertarianism is a simplistic ideology! Block's positions on the issues neatly follow from the non-aggression principle. His simplicity and clarity are one of Block's chief virtues -- they are part of his intellectual inheritance from Rothbard. Steeletrap (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your concern about adequately expressing Block's nuanced views is noted. But purging the entire controversy doesn't accomplish that. Instead, I suggest you expand the article to include Block's opposition to Jim Crow laws alongside his support for the "right" of Woolsworth to ban blacks from its lunch counters. Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich, you are concerned about taking the quotation out of context. However, we have the entire Block quotation, thanks to LewRockwell.com, RS.

“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths." Later, Block remarks that "the only thing horrid about actual slavery was that it violated the NAP. Otherwise, apart from that one thing, slavery was innocuous: you could pick cotton in the healthy outdoors, sing songs, they would give you gruel, etc." Again, his own words are consistent with the Times' interpretation and the content I added.

Where is the misrepresentation in the Times piece or in my addition to the article? Would you be placated if we quoted the entire paragraph? Steeletrap (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The best Wikipedian method of presenting the subject (Block's views / libertarian views) would be as part of the articles on slavery, racial segregation, non-aggression principle, libertarian perspectives on slavery, etc. (In those articles the simplistic/nuanced views can be explained.) As it stands, these articles do not exist or are inadequate. (As a resource, Ronald Hamowy's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism has 6 long pages on slavery, 2 on racism, and 2 on nonagression.) But another, also important, aspect of this particular problem is the controversial nature/manner in which the contentious material is presented. The NYT article is about Rand Paul. It goes into his connection with Mises.org. As part of the description of Mises.org, controversial aspects of Block's comments are mentioned. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.) In this regard, it is opinionated and fraught with WP:BLPFIGHT problems. Seeking or suggesting that we import the full give-and-take of the dispute into Wikipedia is problematic. – S. Rich (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is your OR that it is opinionated. This is not supported by mainstream sources. It is not an opinion piece (do you read newspapers?) but a report by reporters for the news section. 17 of Block's colleagues at Loyola, and the President of his university, condemned him for this. It is a major controversy that should not be whitewashed. Instead, we should work together to present both sides of the controversy (the paleolibertarian side versus everyone else). Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover it's a simple misrepresentation of fact and WP policy to assert that WP references may only be used to support statements concerning the title or principle subject of the source. For example, we use books on higher education to support article text about specific universities. Similar examples are to be found in every well-developed WP article. Serial denial of RS text based on a litany of tenuous or demonstrably false rationales leads nowhere. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I too have no idea where Rich gets the notion that an article can only be used as a source about its main point. The majority of WP would disappear overnight if that were adopted as policy. Steeletrap (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In general the effect of such a practice would be to compromise the balance, context, and neutrality of sources and articles. It's clear that would be particularly problematic for articles of less notable subjects (Block being an example) which, unlike e.g. Leonardo da Vinci or even Charlie Chaplin, do not have hundreds of published references devoted solely to the subject. And that's even before we try to parse the next question: Is an article about Chaplin's costume RS for statements about his coiffure, or a book about Leonardo's drawings RS for a statement concerning his students. Fortunately, there is no such constraint. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)