Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Personal remarks by and about Friedman & Rothbard

@Steeletrap: How are Friedman's personal criticisms of Rothbard biographical [1]? Suppose Friedman said "I hated Rothbard." We would not include that, would we? And I believe you added the personal criticisms that Rothbard made, which are not biographical either. An encyclopedic biography should simply be a brief description or account of a person's life. With this in mind, both sets of personal criticisms should be removed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. Personal disputes are central to many biographies, especially those of career polemicists like Rothbard. Look at the Christopher Hitchens WP biography. It's largely about his personal disputes, and appropriately describes his ad hominem arguments against Bill Clinton and others (ad hominem arguments aren't fallacious or ineffective in the context of an argument strictly about the character of a person; in the context of a piece whose thesis is that Milton Friedman is 'not a real libertarian' (as opposed to a piece about his scholarship or economic views), ad hominem arguments are entirely appropriate and indeed necessary.) Furthermore, I don't see you objecting to Rothbard's attack on Ayn Rand, or any number of personal attacks/disputes described in these articles. Steeletrap (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard's initial friendship with Rand and his eventual hatred of her are exactly the sort of details that belong in a bio. Same for his relationship with Friedman. MilesMoney (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Steeletrap, for your thoughtful comment. You don't notice my objections, but that does not mean there are none. These remarks happened to catch my eye. So if there are other improper personal attacks, we need to evaluate them in context. In the Hitchens article, were the remarks personal as opposed to simply critical? Do his criticisms violate BLP? And most importantly are we including the counter-criticisms (personal or not) that his "victims" may have presented? – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We have to remember that this article is supposed to be a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources not original research based on primary source material. That way, we could avoid most of these arguments. TFD (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I'd agree. However, there is a lot of RS coverage, both secondary and primary, of the Rothbard-Friedman feud. It therefore deserves coverage. Steeletrap (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The MilesMoney should present them and a proposed summary, rather than re-inventing the wheel. There is also the issue of neutrality. A claim made by one person against another person that has not been reported in rs should not be mentioned, because that would mean we were creating significance. Also, if an rs has mentioned the claim, then we have a source that explains the depth of the claim, and what credibility should be attached to it, and probably Rothbard's response. TFD (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no ban on using primary source material. The Friedman RS constitutes a secondary response to Rothbard's general ad hominem criticism of him (even if not that from the precise article). In this situation, use of PS is justified and appropriate. Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

While there may not be a ban, it is hard to justify its introduction except for straightforward facts, such as the LvMI's address, unless its significance is introduced in secondary sources. I don't think "well there's no law against it" is a good guideline for choices that one makes. TFD (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

SRICH and TFD bring up good points above which should be respected. Also, the constant use of hyperventilated synonyms for Rothbard criticizing others has become rather comical. At some point I'll go through and tone them down.

As I mentioned on Milton Friedman talk page:

A really quick search shows that other secondary reliable sources mention Rothbard criticizing Friedman instead of using primary: Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers (Bloomsbury), Civic Liberalism (Rowman & Littlefield) or compare their views like Liberalism, (U of Minnesota Press). And here's another article with Mark Skousen discussing a Friedman criticism of Rothbard. Adding that general context and range of issues and a Friedman reply or two would make it a more solid paragraph.

Commentary by each on the other is relevant, as long as there is a proper notation of context and of fact there was a defacto debate going on between them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can cite WP:RS which states that there was an ongoing "debate" between the two, that will remain your OR. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

I'm concerned that this change was mostly bad, and would like it to be explained. MilesMoney (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed to see the qualifier "heterodox economist" removed, when that description is (in one case, literally) supported by numerous RS. The claims in support of these changes are obscurantist and unhelpful (i.e. a vague statement that Rothbard is too "complex" to describe with these terms; never mind that this is blatantly OR, and that we go off of RS in this website). Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Heterodox economist of the Austrian school" is like butter on bacon as we say in Norway. The article about the Austrian school says clearly in the lede that the school of thought is often regarded as heterodox. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Austrian School article says that the school "is" "often" regarded as heterodox. This doesn't imply that all Austrian economists are heterodox. Nor does it imply that the Austrian School was always viewed as heterodox. Moreover, laypeople who read this article are likely not to know the heterodox nature of (much of) the Austrian School. Thus, qualifying Rothbard as "heterodox economist" imparts important information to our readers. Steeletrap (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there are Austrian economists who follow mainstream methodology and publish in academic journals and have no connection with the Rothbard wing of the school. My only concern is whether the average reader, most of whom would have little or no knowledge of economics, would know what "heterodox" means. TFD (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We could also use "fringe." Heterodox is really just a PC way of saying that. Steeletrap (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard did also publish in mainstream and highly esteemed journals like The American Economic Review, The Journal of Finance, The American Economist and so on. Besides, we normally only include the very basic and non-controversial information in the first line. The specifics come further down. You need at least to qualify your sentence about not publishing in mainstraim publications. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Iselilja, can you please provide sources for your claims about Rothbard's publications (outside of mandatory grad school pubs)? We have two high quality RS, which are sympathetic to Rothbard, that describe him as a heterodox economist who refused to publish in the mainstream journals. Steeletrap (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

For instance:

• Value Implications of Economic Theory, The American Economist 1973, no 1, p 35
• The Panic of 1819: Contemporary Opinion and Policy, The Journal of Finance, 1960, no 3, p 420, Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Biographical Dictionary of American Economists lists the notable works of Rothbard as:

• Man, Economy and State (1962)
• The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies (1962)
• Power and Market, Government and the Economy (1970)
• America's Great Depression (1973)
• The Essential von Mises (1973)

David Charles Lewis, who wrote the entry about Rothbard in the Biographical Dictionary of American Economists, goes into the most detail about Rothbard's Great Depression book which he says is "Rothbard's most memorable work." He writes: "Most historians regarded America's Great Depression as highly reductionist in its retelling of history. Nevertheless, Rothbard was credited with bringing the interventionist side of Hoover to light."

This is the reference I used to define Rothbard as a libertarian economist. Another label that could be drawn from the Dictionary entry might be "free-market economist". Lewis describes at length how Rothbard was an absolutist in his demand that government give up control of economic measures, and Lewis talks about how Rothbard advocated a return to the gold standard as an essential step toward attaining market freedom. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are links:[2][3] Rothbard obtained a PhD in economics and was published, but he expressed the views for which he is remembered outside academic publishing. Is there anything in these works that has obtained any notice either in academic literature or among Rothbard's followers? Is there anything that leads one to think he was expressing the views that he would later write? TFD (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Iselilja, The American Economist is not The American Economic Review (why were you lumping those publications together?). The former is the publication for undergraduate honors society Omicron Delta Epsilon, for whose journals undergraduates often publish. The fact is that, per sources critical and sympathetic, Rothbard basically refuse to publish in mainstream sources, apart from what was needed to get him through graduate school. Steeletrap (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Murray did also publish in the American Economic Review: Mises' "Human Action": Comment; Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller. In addition he published in American Political Science Review: Communications (1957, co-writer), Political Science Quarterly (book review 1968), Quarterly Journal of Economics The Politics of Political Economists: Comment (1960). And back to the starting point of this discussion about using "heterodox" in the first sentence of the lede: There is a small category named Heterodox economists, but from spot checks, none of these economists are referred to as heterodox in the introduction. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"reply to Mr. Schuller" sounds like a letter to the editor, not the title of a journal article. Steeletrap (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Steele and TFD have covered this quite thoroughly, so I endorse their view. MilesMoney (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any significant Rothbard publication in American Economic Review. The note on Human Action was a comment on a comment on Mises' book. The Journal of Finance citation is three pages from MR's dissertation. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

At least two editors have complained about Bink's latest round of changes, but nobody (including Bink) has offered any sort of explanation here for why the list of fields was removed from the infobox. Is there any? MilesMoney (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Heterodox economist as prime descriptor is POV/WP:Undue

Just one more POV thing stuck in there. Sure, you can say those two authors describe him as one as I did later one in lead (though that may not be best place to say it, and Hoppe statement following it is pure POV synth). But the great majority of sources call him an "Austrian economist." User:Carolmooredc talk 06:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The "heterodox" classification is not strong enough to serve in the lead section. It is only strong enough to mention in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I see someone put it back using a quote from Hoppe and claiming it means heterodox. This is still just two guys opinion. Also, the section should not be heterodox economics. Where is the defense of this? Given none will put it someplace more appropriate, like comment in the "Economics" section. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the Heterodox economics article, Austrian economics falls 'partly within, and partly outside mainstream economics'. There is possibly an argument in favour of Rothbard being a heterodox economist, but I agree with Binksternet in their saying that a statement about it does not belong in the lead section. The two sources in the Rothbard article about the heterodox economics statement are also very weak... 60.225.33.120 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, "Heterodox" is (somewhat disparaging) comment on a form of economics, not a suitable title or description of it.North8000 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's accurate with regard to Rothbard. Yes, part of Austrian economics is within the mainstream, but Rothbard's part isn't it. Remember, the Miseans are the ones who explicitly reject the scientific method, which is what makes them, to put it gently, heterodox. MilesMoney (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

BRD/Too much from Hoppe on Austrian method

Ok, let's discuss this. Does anyone have an argument for removing this material? MilesMoney (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: How about giving people three minutes to finish their talk page entry? Thus adding my title as well.

At this diff Steeletrap undid, without discussion here, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz' reversion of Steeletrap's addition of the following (underlined):

• (Rothbard) embraced the strictly a priori Misesian method, which conceives of economic laws as akin to geometric or mathematical axioms: fixed, unchanging, objective, and discernible through logical reasoning, without the use of any evidence. Rothbard's Misesian methodology, according to fellow Misesian Hans-Hermann Hoppe

His edit summary reads: (excess detail in lede, a bit of axegrinding) I agree and when I reverted Steeletrap's wrongful revert - which MilesMoney reverted back, against BRD. After the first revert of new material you discuss it. You don't just revert it back yourself.

Anyway, I added that there is a problem with the sourcing. Hoppe is not writing specifically about Rothbard and names him only in the context of a number of people: Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan, to cite a few names, and as represented by Mises and Rothbard, and all the rest. This is too non-specific to describe Rothbard's very specific views (and I haven't even bothered to check your summary to see if it conforms to the source). The short version is more than enough from this source. Find a source that talks specifically about Rothbard's actual take on the Austrian issue; I'm sure it had some unique aspects. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The original removal was bold, and Steele's revert was the next step in BRD. At that point, if you disagreed with Steele, your job was to create a talk page section (just as you have belatedly done now) and discuss it. That's BRD. You did not BRD, you edit-warred to remove the material again, and that is bad. I have corrected your error, but please do not repeat it. Hopefully, my explanation of WP:BRD is clear enough that you now understand it. If not, please read up on it.

As for the merits of removing this material, there are none. It's accurate, well-written and reliably sourced. The "axe to grind" comment is little more than a shameful violation of WP:AGF. Hoppe explicitly names Rothbard, so you're mistaken about sourcing. Really, there's nothing left to discuss now. MilesMoney (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: Well, if that's true you should not have reverted me, isn't it. If I was incorrect in my thinking, my crime would be worse than the person who was correct in their thinking, eh?

In any case Wikipedia:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not reads: Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow. So Steeletrap was editwarring. You and I were not. So Steeltrap should get the warning. Thanks for making me go to WP:BRD

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your revert violated BRD and was edit-warring. I reverted it because it was out of order and because doing so would force you to finally come to the table and discuss the issue. Stop misapplying policy to justify your edit-warring. I have no tolerance for it. YOU were edit-warring, Steele was just applying the R in BRD, and I was correcting your error. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Your mention, above, of Friedman and others is a red herring. Hoppe does not lump them with the Misesian a priorism discussion. If you don't understand this, please re-read the source essay. The source clearly and explicitly supports the text which was improperly removed from the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is there is no statement that Rothbard himself believed specifically the views summarized. He's just twice mentioned as one of several names who believed some combination of those. But if that's the best you all can find I guess better researchers will have to provide better info when they get a chance. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's preposterous. Try reading any of MR's works on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take editor's word for it. When higher quality sources specifically about Rothbard are available (and there are several already in the article), use them, don't use less specific ones that just list Rothbard as one of several individuals all of whom will have slightly different perspectives. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you, caroldc, from adding content or better sources you feel should be added to the article. Any such efforts can only benefit WP. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I had intended to do since I also was annoyed at the material, but since someone else deleted it on proper grounds, figured I'd jump in. It's on my very long clean up list... In the interim, here's some Carlo Lottieri writing that shows his views are not quite as simplistic as Steeletrap's edits might lead one to believe. So a more sophisticated telling doubtless is in order. More to come at my leisure...Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, Rothbard (paraphrased by Hoppe) is not talking about economics in the page you cite. He's talking about law. Economics is objective and unchanging, like 1+1=2, in the mind of Rothbard. Please resolve to comprehend the meaning of passages before citing them to prove your points. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC) All you really need to know to understand it is that there is no evidence involved, and all the "logical deduction" involved indicates "Government BAD, market good!." Also, no actual (trained) logician has never come to the position the Misesians do, just obscure economists. Steeletrap (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

An a priori truth is one that is necessarily true, either be definition (E.g. A=A, and A≠~A) or logical deduction (2-1=1). Trying to "test" such propositions would indeed be wrongheaded. Rothbard is claiming that economics, like geometry, is entirely a priori. This is not just false but absurd, for more reasons than I can count. For one, while there is no exception to a=a, there are endless empirical exceptions to economic "laws." (The law of demand indicates that we typically prefer cheaper goods to more expensive ones; but an exception to this is the Veblen good.); its value being predicated on a psychological sense of "prestige" and "eliteness" associated with high expense, such a good's demand decreases when its price decreases.) Hence they are more analogous to the laws of physical sciences, which are of course replete with exceptions, and are subject to constant empirical attempts to find more, and even question (some or all of) the validity of the law.

Rothbard's economic framework also requires the odd pairing of a subjective value theory with an absolute faith in the rationality of individual actors (rationality as defined as people choosing whatever preferences they prefer at a given moment; again, there is no empirical support to suggest this is true). The simple fact that his claims are clearly erroneous, not a "statist" conspiracy, is why no one takes Rothbard's economics seriously outside of 1) fringe scholars on the payroll of Rothbard's Institute, 2) the laypeople who buy their books and push his political agenda. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if true, and I haven't seen convincing evidence, it doesn't mean that the herd of cats over there all have the exact viewpoint. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard's "In Defense of Extreme Apriorism" is a good place to start. As to the flock, the reason they're difficult to herd is not because they're cats, but because they belong to various different shepherds (Rand, Rothbard, Schiff, and Molyneaux, to name a few). Steeletrap (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, you would have fewer disappointing surprises here if you would take the time to read or reread some of Rothbard's writings to get more familiar with his thought. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, most proponents of Rothbard haven't actually read any of his epistemology, philosophy or economics. They just uncritically adopt everything he says because it's congenial to their political values, which they adopted without any study of philosophy, economics and so forth. Steeletrap (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so he's like Rand. MilesMoney (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The expression "discernible through logical reasoning, without the use of any evidence" injects judgment into the article, which is POV. One would not say for example that mathematicians calculated pi without any evidence or that Locke developed his philosophy without any evidence. It would be neutral to explain that he did not believe the method used in physcial sciences could be applied to social sciences due to the complexity of human decisions, and then provide a response from a mainstream economist. Also, I question why we are delving into his theories when there are no reliable sources that explain them. If we provide a link to sites that publish Rothbard's writings, readers are free to go there and we avoid all these problems of RS and POV. TFD (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Economics is about the behavior of people; it's a soft science. Even hard sciences, such as physics, do not get to ignore evidence. For a soft science to attempt to do so is ridiculous. More to the point, it's so opposed tot he scientific method that it's fringe. That last part is actually relevant. MilesMoney (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, TFD. Just no. There are plenty of reliable sources that Rothbard believes econ (like Geometry) requires no evidence. (You would absolutely say that pi can be calculated without empirical evidence.) We should not say it is unscientific. But we should summarize the methodology accurately. And we should quote Hoppe and other pro-Rothbard economists who say that everyone other than Rothbard's bosom buddies regard it as such. Steeletrap (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this procedure. An editor adds material without a source, someone removes it, and we start having a dicussion about Rothbard without any reference to any reliable secondary sources. Worse, it spills into noticeboards. AFAIK there are no rs for the edit, and therefore per weight should be excluded. If no one outside the LvMI has bothered to write about something then it is unimportant as far as this article is concerned. Just think of all the time we could save by basing the article on sources rather than writing it and looking for sources later. If the point you want the article to make is that Rothbard's theories are "false and absurd", you may be out of luck. But you can ensure that articles on economics explain why empiricism is important. TFD (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I know you are tired, but please try to be clearer. Are you saying that the Rothbard material is primary sourced (it isn't)? Or are you saying that LvMI isn't RS for describing his thought? Steeletrap (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The LvMI writings are not rs, and Rothbard's article, "In Defense of Extreme Apriorism", is a primary source. It is not "a good place to start." The only good place to start (and probably finish) is with relevant, reliable secondary sources. The fact they are absent is no reason to lower standards of rs and npov policy. TFD (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you will join me then in excising the remarks of LvMI scholars from WP's economics entries. However, they are RS for describing the philosophical thought of Rothbard, e.g. what his epistemology was. This is distinct from evaluating his contributions to econ, which they are not competent to do. Steeletrap (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful with primary sources. The act of choosing can bring significance to the insignificant, which is a form of WP:OR. If no RS ever comments on Rothbard's epistemology (or whatever), then I'm not sure we should be hunting down these unappreciated and ignored passages from the primary source. MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We have lots of secondary RS showing that Rothbard was out of the mainstream/didn't publish/was ostracized by his peers. Describing his methodology, through secondary and primary sources, helps our readers understand why this was the case. Steeletrap (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

MR eschewed the most widely-read and respected publications in the areas of his interest. Whether he could have lived a different life and contributed to the larger intellectual mileu of his time is moot. In the absence of such publications and the commentary which they might have elicited, we have no basis on which to discuss his writings in great detail. This is very unfortunate but it is what WP policy demands. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Selgin on Rothbard

I think Selgin's remark about Rothbard's busines cycle theory is good stuff. But the pissing match with Llewellyn over his absurd statement that MR was more influential than MF, and Selgin's assessment of Rothbard as "mediocre to bad" as an economist, seem unnecessary. Steeletrap (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

I find nothing in this talk page about the NPOV dispute. Please read the instructions in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute otherwise we will be having an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadenssContinued (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, I noticed your user page and I was not telling you to leave the article but to leave the tag. Sorry to not be clear; or maybe I ran out of space. Can't remember now. Since there is an arbitration I'm not going to debate the tag right now, except to say again that there are ongoing disputes and NPOV once mentioned about and neutrality a couple times. Discussion may be stuck because of arbitration but the archive bot keeps going. And it is just a matter of checking the last couple archives. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't got a dog in this fight, so I'm not particularly concerned about the arbitration. That second paragraph in the NPOV dispute page makes it very clear how to treat NPOV disputes. If you want the tag on the article, then you need to meet those requirements, which do not make any mention of exceptions for articles in arbitration. MadenssContinued (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Continued: Rockwell blog on views on evolution

Since a new editor saw that paragraph and could see it was problematic and removed it, and an editor reverted it, let's look at Talk:Murray_Rothbard/Archive_7#Evolution. I see the discussion petered out at discussion of RS and we never got around to doing an WP:RSN on that. One more thing to add to my Do List. Points of particular interest to me from quoted above [added later: archived] discussion:
1)

• This is the sort of throw a way self-published blog comment I would not find very reliable on this site unless it was substantiated with some writings of Rothbard.
• There are many assertions about the actual processes of evolution that one might be skeptical about without being skeptical that evolution exists and happens, including the speed of evolution, what role genes play, etc. None of them deny evolution happens. So without Rockwell describing just what Rothbard's issues were, preferably with some link to a discussion, this is just a silly inference that is way below the standards of Wikipedia. (Like a lot of material in this article, but this one is particularly annoying.) User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  

2) Of course, reading quickly through Reed's article "The Metaphysics of Evolution" which Rockwell refers to, I think if anything that would be more like Rothbard's view, skepticism of the orthodoxy that life began randomly. Ever heard of Emergent evolution??... (carolmooredc)
3) In order to add Rockwell's views on evolution, we need a reliable third party source that says it is significant to his theories/career. TFD (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2013
4)If it had been a major issue for Rothbard then he would have written about him or reliable source would have commented. TFD (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Will announce when put in on WP:RSN, unless you all want to put it there or it gets removed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor that removed the paragraph. I saw no quotes that could be attributed to Rothbard or actual discussion of his views on evolution beyond Rockwell saying comparing his doubts to that of Ron Paul. What doubts are these? The subsequent Fred Reed article doesn't state anything about Rothbard's views. I don't think its well sourced. Perhaps there is something there, but I think it would have to go back to writings or interviews by Rothbard. Clubintheclub (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I know Rockwell was close...but still, Rockwell doesn't elaborate on anything beyond "doubts". I can believe in evolution but doubt that human life or mammalian life evolved on earth panspermia for example. I believe that the paragraph suggests "evolution denial." Clubintheclub (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the language should be "In a blog post Lew Rockwell noted that, like Ron Paul, Rothbard "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism." Clubintheclub (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Other thoughts?

Basically there's no there there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rothbard believed in evolution.

Here're a couple paragraphs from chapter one of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto:

A second, reinforcing change in the ideology of classical liberals came during the late nineteenth century, when, at least for a few decades, they adopted the doctrines of social evolutionism, often called “social Darwinism.”  Generally, statist historians have smeared such social Darwinist laissez-faire liberals as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner as cruel champions of the extermination, or at least of the disappearance, of the socially “unfit.” Much of this was simply the dressing up of sound economic and sociological free-market doctrine in the then-fashionable trappings of evolutionism.  But the really important and crippling aspect of their social Darwinism was the illegitimate carrying-over to the social sphere of the view that species (or later, genes) change very, very slowly, after millennia of time.  The social Darwinist liberal came, then, to abandon the very idea of revolution or radical change in favor of sitting back and waiting for the inevitable tiny evolutionary changes over eons of time.  In short, ignoring the fact that liberalism had had to break through the power of ruling elites by a series of radical changes and revolutions, the social Darwinists became conservatives preaching against any radical measures and in favor of only the most minutely gradual of changes.⁵

In fact, the great libertarian Spencer himself is a fascinating illustration of just such a change in classical liberalism (and his case is paralleled in America by William Graham Sumner).  In a sense, Herbert Spencer embodies within himself much of the decline of liberalism in the nineteenth century.  For Spencer began as a magnificently radical liberal, as virtually a pure libertarian.  But, as the virus of sociology and social Darwinism took over in his soul, Spencer abandoned libertarianism as a dynamic, radical historical movement, although without abandoning it in pure theory. While looking forward to an eventual victory of pure liberty, of “contract” as against “status,” of industry as against militarism, Spencer began to see that victory as inevitable, but only after millennia of gradual evolution.  Hence, Spencer abandoned liberalism as a fighting, radical creed and confined his liberalism in practice to a weary, conservative, rearguard action against the growing collectivism and statism of his day.

Here is the footnote:

⁵Ironically enough, modern evolutionary theory is coming to abandon completely the theory of gradual evolutionary change.  Instead, it is now perceived that a far more accurate picture is sharp and sudden flips from one static species equilibrium to another; this is being called the theory of “punctuational change.”  As one of the expounders of the new view, Professor Stephen Jay Gould, writes:

Gradualism is a philosophy of change, not an induction from nature.  …  Gradualism, too, has strong ideological components more responsible for its previous success than any objective matching with external nature.  …  The utility of gradualism as an ideology must explain much of its influence, for it became liberalism’s quintessential dogma against radical change—sudden flips are against the laws of nature.

Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution: Explosion, Not Ascent,” New York Times (January 22, 1978).

Source:  Murray N. Rothbard, “The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism,” Ch. 1 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd. ed. (Auburn, AL: the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006; 1973, 1978), pp. 20–21.

As one can see, Rothbard believed in evolution.  What he rejected was the counterrevolutionary influence of social Darwinism.

Best,
allixpeeke (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing Pat Buchanan from the list of people who influenced Rothbard

Rothbard's views were well-formed long before he temporarily hitched his tent to Buchanan.  In a piece about Rothbard, Lew Rockwell writes,

Very little changed throughout [Rothbard's] life.  He was radically in favor of free markets and radically opposed to war, a wholly consistent opponent of the welfare-warfare state.  But in the intellectual-political history of 1952–1989, there was no place for such a person.  Official opinion required philosophical inconsistency, and the segmentation of intellectual camps followed the same course.

So Rothbard often had to make political decisions by weighing the foreign-policy question against a candidate’s domestic program.  For example, let’s fast-forward 40 years to the presidential elections of the 1990s.  Pat Buchanan challenged George Bush for the Republican nomination, saying that Bush had made two unforgivable errors: he waged an unjust war against Iraq and he raised taxes.  Did Rothbard support Buchanan?  You bet.  And he worked overtime trying to get Buchanan up to speed on broader economic issues…

But Buchanan lost the nomination, and refused to pursue a third-party option.  Rothbard then turned to Perot as the candidate worth rooting for, and on the same grounds: Perot blasted Bush’s war and his taxes.  Then Perot suddenly pulled out.  That left Bush and Clinton, whose foreign policy was no different from Bush’s but whose domestic policy was worse.

Rothbard then supported Bush against Clinton.  His very controversial column appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and it garnered more hate mail than Rothbard had ever received in his life.  Many libertarians (not famous for strategic acumen or catching the subtleties of such matters) were shocked by his non-interest in the LP nominee.  But by that time, Rothbard was convinced that the LP was running a presidential campaign in name only, that it was a clique devoted not to politics but to lifestyle.

Had Rothbard become a Republican?  Far from it: two years later, he blasted Newt Gingrich in the Washington Post even before the new Republican Congress under Newt’s leadership had assembled.  Had he become a Buchananite?  Take a look at his 1995 piece, reprinted in The Irrepressible Rothbard, in which he predicts that in 1996 Pat would concentrate on protectionism to the exclusion of every other important subject.  He [Buchanan] was getting trapped into “becoming just another variety of ‘Lane Kirkland Republican’.”  That article sent the Buchananites through the roof.  But it foreshadowed the fall of yet another promising political force.

It seems that the only reason Rothbard was even giving any energy to the two establishment parties was that he was having some sort of personal tiff with the LP at the time.  Rockwell describes it as the LP being controlled by people more interested in living libertarian lifestyles than promoting libertarian political philosophy, but whatever.  Rockwell is right that Rothbard had abandoned the LP at that point in time. (“Rothbard was convinced that the LP [had become]…a clique devoted not to politics but to lifestyle.”)

More importantly, as this segment indicates, Rothbard was trying to teach Buchanan about economics, to get Buchanan to abandon his protectionist views.  Rothbard was trying to influence Buchanan, rather than being influenced by Buchanan.  (“And [Rothbard] worked overtime trying to get Buchanan up to speed on broader economic issues.”)

Further, this segment confirms that Rothbard’s views were well-formed already, long before his temporary alliance with the Buchananites.  (“Very little changed throughout [Rothbard’s] life.  He was radically in favor of” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  Rothbard himself wrote in 1968, “TWENTY YEARS AGO I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone ‘Neanderthal’ (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that ‘Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists.’  Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U. S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party.  And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades!”)

Later, in the Rockwell piece, Rockwell writes,

Indeed, Rothbard was a tough-as-nails strategist and thinker, one who was breathtakingly creative as an intellectual force but refused blind devotion to conventional wisdom or any institution or individual that promoted it.  Such a man is bound to make enemies.  Hardly a day goes by when I don’t run across some wild misunderstanding of his life and work, some outrageous calumny spread by those who know he can no longer answer them, some crazy theory claiming to be an extension of Rothbardian ethics, or, worse, a wildly distorted presentation of history that demonizes Rothbard’s role in some political affair.

It’s usually best to not pay attention to these smears.  As Raimondo points out, “he was a giant among pygmies, too large to be consumed by the struggle with his errant followers.”  There’s no reason why today’s Rothbardians should be consumed by the claims against him either.  And yet, a main virtue of this book is precisely that it debunks a room-full of myths about the man, and it does so not with conjecture, but with primary documentation.  Let’s take them one by one.

Rockwell proceeds to list smears in italics, followed by a paragraph explaining the matter.  Here’s what Rockwell says of Rothbard vis-à-vis Buchanan:

“He became a Buchananite.”  When Pat Buchanan criticized Bush’s war and tax increases,…Rothbard rose to his defense, and heroically so.  He also worked very hard to turn Buchanan into a consistent libertarian, or at least to make him into the model of what he [Buchanan] claimed to be: an Old Right isolationist constitutionalist.  Raimondo points out that Rothbard was frustrated that he did not achieve his goal.  Further, he points out that Rothbard “chided Buchanan for being a classic case of the old adage that some people (especially politicians) often concentrate on those issues in which they have the least expertise; in Buchanan’s case, this is undoubtedly the realm of economics.”  Special credit goes to Raimondo for pointing this out, since he is personally far more favorable to Buchanan than Rothbard was from 1992 forward.

So there we have it:  Rothbard aligned himself with the Buchananites during the 1992 GOP primaries simply as a strategy to try to promote constitutionalism and opposition to war within the Republican Party.  He wasn’t influenced by Buchanan, but tried to influence Buchanan.  Rothbard strongly opposed Buchananist protectionism.

To say that Rothbard was “influenced by” Buchanan simply because he supported Buchanan in the '92 primaries is as absurd as saying that I was influenced by Gary Johnson simply because I supported and voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, ignoring that my political views were formed well before my voting for Johnson.  To say that Rothbard was “influenced by” Buchanan simply because he supported Buchanan in the '92 primaries is as absurd as saying he was also influenced by Perot, or by G. H. W. Bush, both of whom he supported after Buchanan dropped out.

If, on the other hand, one wishes to claim that Rothbard was #8220;influenced by” Buchanan, not because of his support for Buchanan⁏s candidacy, but #8220;because he wrote praisingly of Buchanan,#8221; then we would also have to say that Rothbard was influenced by Che Guevara!  After all, Rothbard wrote an article praising the life and work of Guevara in 1967.  (See “Ernesto Che Guevara, RIP,” Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought 3, no. 3 (Spring-Autumn 1967), pp. 3–6.)  But, of course, that would be absurd.

Conclusion

Suffice it to say, Rothbard was not influenced by Buchanan, no more so than he was influenced by Che Guevara, Ross Perot, or George H. W. Bush.  Thus, I am removing Pat Buchanan from the info box.  If you think this edit unwise, please discuss below.

(All emboldened emphasis to quotes above added by me.)

allixpeeke (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you have provided reason to question the inclusion of Buchanan, we should discuss this further and seek more input before re-adding it. However, I disagree with your reasoning -- after the paleocons split from the paleolibertarians, Llewellyn and several other of MR's retainers tried to downplay the relationship. But it was an extensive one characterized by mutual respect and influence. Steeletrap (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please put citation after text

re: this diff. As has been repeatedly mentioned to the editor, and now will be quoted from policy -Wikipedia:Citing sources: An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote. Editors should not have to search around for the source because an editor doesn't put the citation in the right place. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Moore. I did cite the source. You don't have to cite sources multiple times. Steeletrap (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to delete valid, well-sourced article text on account of the placement of its citation. Next time, please use talk to express your concern. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Steeletrap's diff read restoring properly sourced content (see the "Costs of War" book; it's there, ignoring WP:Burden of evidence is on the person who enters the material
• Steeletrap reverted my removal of the material here less than 24 hours after Steeletrap put it in without opening a section of discussion. This is obvious edit warring behavior. See WP:BRD. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The second diff isn't a reversion, but the addition of original content. Other than a bot, no one else had edited the Rothbard page for over five days prior to that edit. You are going to have to (as usual) cross your charges. I have almost given up telling you to read diffs carefully before making (erroneous, easily avoidable) accusations; how long is this going to go on? Steeletrap (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I don't understand whether you were concerned about the location (or duplication) of the footnote, or whether your concern was that the reference was not valid RS and that the content was inappropriate? Please clarify. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Re-read above. re: this diff. As has been repeatedly mentioned to the editor, and now will be quoted from policy -Wikipedia:Citing sources: An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote.

Given Steeletrap's refusal to follow BRD even during an Arbitration, I won't waste further effort for today on this discussion. Very tired. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DAMN! I hit that key that saves before I want to and before I corrected misspelling and deleted my little joke to self. Anyway, I meant to say, some people like to complain about others' competence all the time, so why don't they put their damned references at the end of paragraphs so others don't have to try to figure out if it's WP:OR or not? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Ref name hid real reference

Per this revert I see now that Williamson uses <ref name=":1"> which is the ref name for Rothbard, Murray (1968). "Harry Elmer Barnes as Revisionist of the Cold War.". Since I only read the "read screen" and didn't pay attention to the ref when put in "citation needed" I did not see that that was the error. Since Williamson is used only once, there's no need for the ref name at all so I've removed it; also will remove at Arbitration if it's a diff. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carol. This episode underscores the importance of reading articles carefully before making accusations about editor misconduct therein. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Journal publications

The Skousen source, from a mainstream economist who is sympathetic to Rothbard, is right to say that Rothbard did not publish in mainstream academic journals. Instead, he published in fringe journals at the Institute he co-founded. An exception is his Columbia doctoral thesis. Note that his bibliography is misleading in this regard. E.G. it lists several "publications" in mainstream journals that are in fact no more than letters to the editor. See these two from the American Economic Review (1) (2) and this one from the Quarterly Journal of Economics (1960). As you can see, these are letters to the editor with no data or research; they are not the sort of thing academics list on their C.V. Moreover, for the last 30 years of his career (including the whole period where he was actually a professor) even his biography indicates that he didn't contribute anything to the mainstream journals~ Steeletrap (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You may be right... But of course it's the whole POV placement and context that's the problem, isn't it?? The new "Krugman structure" version should fix that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Students for Thurmond, Columbia chapter

Frankly, the Raimondo book too blithely dismisses Rothbard's affection for Strom Thurmond as a simple byproduct of the former's belief in "state's rights." We should look for RS that more thoroughly detail why Rothbard felt compelled to found a student group on behalf of Thurmond. Surely this early case of political organizing was formative -- it seems to have alienated him from his peers, given the liberalism of Columbia students at the time and Thurmond's outspoken segregationist views. Steeletrap (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We are not supposed to conduct our own analysis, then look for sources that support them. Incidentally, Lee Atwater also began his political career as a Thurmond supporter. TFD (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's putting it a bit starkly, TFD, but in practice one's always searching for material on a topic and what Steeletrap said is more or less the way it might occur. We don't just stumble randomly upon statements and then put them in the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The correct approach is to identify reliable, relevant sources and report what they say. If they ignore things you think are important, then that is too bad. TFD (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Quit your bellyaching, boys, and let's add some RS about Murray and Strommy. Steeletrap (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen any such sources, and frankly I'd be surprised to learn that any exist. If you think there are some to be found, you might try emailing this author: [4] who has done extensive research in the area. He might know of some RS references you could consult. I doubt you'll find them online but I recall you said you're currently teaching at a university so your library may have them. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just an instructor, which is why I have so much time for Wikipedia. You all are my true passion (esp. Bink.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He calls Rothbard a "marginal figure on the right." The problem is that he has been ignored in rs. TFD (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should we put that fact in the article? SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to. TFD (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Version of Raimondo's book Steeletrap using?

At this diff Steeletrap removes a "failed verification" tag writing: rmv obstructionist tag. This is in cited source. We can look at multiple paragraphs on a page (one talks about two day work week, other talks about flexible schedule)

Seeing that neither this material or an actual quote used separately in the article are not in my hardcover version ISBN 1573928097, I now have to wonder what version of the book Steeletrap is using. Books google notes both that ISBN and 9781573928090 and it's page 157 has the same information as mine. Perhaps you need to recheck your page numbers? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Important question. All your uses of the references could be removed in future if others don't know what version you are using and can't find alleged info on the pages cited of the version you are using. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ref name=":2" used twice & Hoppe on Heterodox

At this revert. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Low and behold I complained about this same error - and the misuse of Hoppe as WP:OR back in November on the talk page. There are proper citing and OR policies and reverting material repeatedly without even bothering to acknowledge the problem really is a bit much. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary explains why your revert was inappropriate. Please address the substantive issue here. You are free to fix any reference format issues, but the RS citation, which verifies the article content, should not be removed. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the error already. It's SPECIFICO's error to fix now. (I don't want any warning messages about 3rr.)

The text does not say "Rothbard was not mainstream" so your edit summary " RS citation which supports article text "provoked responses from mainstream..." is irrelevant.

Do you really think that because Source A says says "heterodox" and "not mainstream" together and Source B says "not Mainstream" that means that Source B is supporting word "Heterodox"?? That is the definition of WP:OR/Synth. I didn't realize it needed to be explained so explicitly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is not synthesis. Heterodox and non-mainstream are synonyms. Steeletrap (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's even simpler than that. My edit summary quotes the text which is verified by the reference that was removed. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, first I fixed the error since no one else did. Now before I take this to WP:ORN, I'll give TFD or others a chance to opine whether using Ref 2 to support this is synthesis:

Material referenced: "A heterodox economist"

• Ref 1: "Powell, Benjamin and Stringham, Peter (September 13, 2010). "Economics in Defense of Liberty: The Contribution of Murray Rothbard." Social Science Research Network. Authors describe Rothbard as a "heterodox political economist" far out of the mainstream, who nonetheless was a charismatic figure who caught the attention and provoked responses from the mainstream (a good comparison here is Ayn Rand in philosophy)."
• Ref 2: "Hoppe, Hans Hermann (n.d.). "Austrian Method, Praxeology I." Mises.org. Professor Hoppe notes that Rothbard approached economics from a Misesian perspective which, per Hoppe, is regarded as "dogmatic and unscientific" (i.e. heterodox) by all other economists."
  

By the way, please prove that "(a good comparison here is Ayn Rand in philosophy)" is from the source and not just an editor's opinion. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in text so removed it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate uses of same Hoppe quote

At this diff Steeletrap puts back yet a second use of Hoppe's quote: ""There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard."[17]" If Hoppe had a Nobel prize, maybe he'd be worth quoting twice. At my leisure I can find several other individuals who say that who weren't (as Steeletrap likes to put it "living alongside of him"). Use it in one place or the other, but not both. I am getting quite a list of issues here to take to ....where? I'm just doing a light editing job of making this article NPOV right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap put it back with a dubious explanation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Joey Rothbard scholarly accomplisments

At this diff Steeletrap removes "JoAnn received a bachelors in history from Columbia University in 1966, a Masters in history from New York University in 1974. " Now I could have gone into more details, like quoting that source saying "she was his partner in all aspects of scholarship and life". And there are at least 10 different mentions in An enemy of the state which can be put in. But if everything is going to be just removed, why bother? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We already know that Joey was his wife and "essential framework". Unless you have RS which states that she made some specific contribution to Murray's writing, where she went to school is of no relevance to this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As a woman, I do agree it's interesting that she had a prestigious education, yet is described as if she were only a glorified secretary by Llewellyn, Gary North (Christian Reconstructionist and Rothbard friend/follower) and others. However, it is not the norm to include the educational background of one's spouse in a wiki page unless that education was relevant to the subject of the bio. Steeletrap (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There's actually more from Hoppe in the memoriam that would make it more relevant. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Putting back reference solves issue

(Edit conflict) At this March 14 edit which I just noticed Steeletrap removes description of Joey as Rothbard's "closest" advisor writing closest"=OR. Rothbard loved his wife dearly, but he also loved 4H as a son. Who are we to start ranking these relationships as "closest") You are referring to material that was in a reference which Steeletrap or SPECIFICO removed. So the solution is to put back the reference. ACTUAL REF:Obituary: JoAnn Beatrice Schumacher Rothbard (1928-1999), Mises Institute website, October 30, 1999.</ref> Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC

Opposition to war

"Like Randolph Bourne, Rothbard believed that "war is the health of the state."" This is an odd and frankly nonsensical way to open the section. If you are unfamiliar with Bourne or Rothbard's reading of him, you could just as easily see Rothbard as being a hawk based on this sentence alone. As a result it serves no purpose but to confuse an uninitiated reader (and add a pointless citation). I would like to strike this unless someone feels strongly on the matter. Jaydubya93 (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a summary of how David Gordon describes his views. Feel free to find something better, rather than just removing it. The whole section is not too great right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Rothbard's references to Jews he knew

At this diff SPECIFICO removes "a scholarship student at the mostly Jewish private school" from "Rothbard, later stated that he much preferred Birch Wathen to the "debasing and egalitarian public school system" he had previously attended." with the inflammatory edit summary "Remove gratuitous and undue racial/religious reference)" At this diff he removes "Unlike many Russian and Polish Jewish immigrants who embraced socialism," with the same inflammatory-style "Remove undue and off-topic racial/religious characterization. "

• In the public school section, the original version implies he was some rich kid who liked being in the elites. Actually, he was a scholarship student and he mentions most of the kids were Jewish, both of which might allay that negative inference.
• As for this gratuitous and off-topic "racial/religious characterization", shall we go through every article in Wikipedia and remove all references to Jews knowing and associating with other Jews as "racial/religious characterization"? This is absurdly hypersensitive. Also, what the heck is the racial reference?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please strike your false description of my edit summary as "inflammatory" and be advised that I may seek AE on any undue references to Rothbard's Jewish background or inappropriate comments on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

They are inflammatory and you are the one who is creating a problem by removal of innocuous facts that give a fuller picture of Rothbard growing up knowing a lot of Jews with various viewpoints. Also, you can't get Arbitration Enforcement til Arbitration is over but you can go complain to Arbitrators if you like. I'm half-way on to WP:ANI under community sanctions myself. You are out of line. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Carol, the anti-Semitic community views "jew" as a race. You knew that, right? Steeletrap (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't know that. So you are saying that SPECIFICO is making a personal attack saying I am part of the "anti-Semitic community"? And that has nothing to do with what I wrote, about "innocuous facts that give a fuller picture of Rothbard growing up knowing a lot of Jews with various viewpoints". In any case this obviously needs more input from others (RfC sounds like a plan); but I'll give it a few days to see if regulars show up to opine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Carol there is no basis for the removal as stated. Explaining the religious and/or ethnic character of a biography subject is 100% relevant, particularly when the subject is a member of a group as maligned as the Jews. Speaking as a Jew myself, understanding if someone was, strictly for the purpose of example, alienated from peers of their own religion as a young person speaks volumes to their development in a number of ways that have nothing to do with racism. Should we censor the racial composition of Lincoln University when Thurgood Marshall attended the school? Should we ignore that Ludwig Wittgenstein opted for a job in a Catholic church and not a yeshiva during his break from university during the Nazi era? Are we to maintain that the only people who would argue against such omissions are racists and anti-semites? Such a position is absurd on its face.

Finally, Judaism is considered both a race and a religion by EVERYONE and NOT just by anti-semites. This is due to the relatively unique characteristic of Judaism being "inherited" on the mothers side rather than driven by conversion. I sincerely hope that we can dismiss any further bomb-throwing in the discussion of content that is completely innocuous and deserving of inclusion. Jaydubya93 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There would be no problem adding RS material which is relevant to Rothbard's life or work. The text in question constituted Original Research by one editor who later stated a garbled theory as to Rothbard's Jewishness, his peer groups at school and elsewhere, the character of 1940's New York elites, and other off-topic matters which are not stated by any cited source. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to write out of the article the fact that Rothbard grew up among and went to school with other Jews, and had those community ties, especially since there’s so much material in the article now painting him as an anti-Jew Holocaust denialist who almost became a Catholic. It's called balance. Cut out the cherry picked negative POV material and it won't be necessary. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Structure/references to make article more accurate/NPOV

Better late than never, putting back POV tag to encourage editors to help make the article NPOV. Any experienced editor easily can see the POV promoted through repetition, WP:Undue length on negative material and snide comments and quotes. What’s not as obvious is a) structural problems and b) omission of reliably sourced material. My two subsections below deal with those issues. Comments at the end only, please.

Structural problems

• The biography is a confusing mish-mash. It is artificially broken up to separate the life and work and activist aspects of Rothbard’s biography, even though these were intertwined throughout his life. In between those sections is inserted a “views” section that makes little effort to put in context when/where/why various views were written or published and what their real significance was. IMHO the views section has become merely a WP:Coatrack for creating a hostile view of Rothbard, libertarianism and libertarian individuals and projects associated with him; many of these have Wikipedia articles.
• To better integrate the material I propose structuring the biography thusly, with subsections created only as high quality reliable sources indicate and with the lower quality, highly partisan sources being resigned to their proper placement in short controversies paragraphs and/or the reception section, depending on the issues importance.

1 Education (including Mises influence, activism)

2 1950s (marriage, employment, activism, Ayn Rand)

3 1960s (publications and relevant views, employment, activism, controversies)

4 1970s (publications and relevant views, activism, controversies)

5 1980s (publications and relevant views, employment, activism, controversies)

6 1990s (publications and relevant views, activism, controversies, death)

7 Reception (analysis/praise/criticism/not on controversies that emerged only after he died and his influence grew)

8 Legacy

References

• Making a bibliography of sources on Rothbard I found a lot of errors, missing info, in the existing references that I hope to correct in the article in the next couple days.
• For editors who continue to edit in the future, every single sentence must be checked against the material referencing it to verify the material conforms to source per WP:Verifiability and does not emphasize negative information while ignoring factual information of greater importance, per WP:NPOV.
• Currently at User_talk:Carolmooredc/sandbox I have a rough draft of dozens of references regarding Rothbard organized into 11 categories, inspired in part from discussions we’ve had here. Most but not all have been corrected per the above. Some have been used or are being used in the biography currently; many of these have been under-utilized; information has been cherry picked to make a point, while more important information has been ignored. I'll soon try to list separately the top 15 or 20 sources that my research shows need to be more thoroughly utilized. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT I think a chronological organization is not helpful to the reader and reads like an almanac rather than a cogent exposition of the man's life and work. I see few WP biographies that are organized like a time-line. This article, like all articles, will continue to benefit from more RS references and content, but I think it's got good bones in its current form. When adding content, please be sure that it is sourced to RS for the stated text. Please be particularly mindful to vet sources written by Rothbard's employees or published by his employer. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The current version, which segregates the personal from the political, is preferable. Some readers might be interested in Rothbard's views on anarcho-capitalist dogma (or paleolibertarianism, race and intelligence, torture, and his other theoretical contributions) and have little interest in his relationship with Joey. Others might be exclusively interested in their courtship (or his close paternal ' relationships with Hoppe and Rockwell). Others still might be interested in Rothbard's heterodox economics. The current version accommodates all these demographics, and is more encyclopedic than Carol's proposed one. Steeletrap (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We can always organize it like Paul Krugman's, with perhaps a bit of tweaking: 1 Personal life; 2 Academic career; 3 Author; 4 Activist; 5 Economic views; 6 Ethical-Political views; 7 In popular culture; 8 Published works. Sounds like a plan!!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with alleged issues of POV (hopefully, resolved soon with various bans) but since the section concerns references also, would it be possible to agree on a referencing style. This is a GA and for many years used {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} etc. More recently, someone seems to have chosen to ignore WP:CITEVAR and the thing is now a mess. Personally, I like {{sfnp}} but unless someone can find a discussion per CITEVAR, all non-cite references (eg: {{rp}}) need to be brought into line with the style that previously existed. It will be easier to do that than to embark on yet another, inevitably fractious, debate aimed at achieving consensus on Where We Go From Here. - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been complaining about this for a while but didn't really have all the relevant lingo and links or time to figure it all out. Thanks. I thought about doing it but assumed it would be reverted; for now just put on relevant tag to see if that encourages someone to clean it up at some point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem and I regret my role in it (I'm sure Carol regrets hers as well). It's important to have consistent citation styles. Steeletrap (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Don't speak for me. There are two main styles that often are used in articles without problems and I use one of them. But adding odd ball ref numbered names and using the same one for entirely different references and putting page numbers in text (at all not to mention inconsistently) are whole other issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the chronological approach. He is best known in reliable sources for his political activities. It also makes neutrality easier, because we can report what he was saying at various times rather than have to construct a summary of his views. Do you know if he had any involvement with Rampart College? TFD (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that the sequencing of statements makes it easier to decide which statements to include in the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to get rid of all: those statements. TFD (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. To which statements do you refer? I was responding to the discussion concerning the option of sequencing of the article content by chronology rather than by subject. 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to draft of reorganization

Draft of reorganized Rothbard article here in one of my sandboxes. As I write there: this is a work in progress which starts with material currently in the Murray Rothbard article (as of 3/12/14) but reorganized in a more logical fashion, ala the Paul Krugman article, but tweaked for Rothbard's life. Notes are interspersed regarding what needs expanding, what is WP:Undue, what needs better referencing, and what needs tweaking, etc. Just started to strike WP:Undue material and underline new material. Minor tweaks/continued reorganization of material are not noted. See also list of good existing references here; they need expanding upon, as well as unused references. When more complete editors interested in a more NPOV version can decided if we need a Murray Rothbard subpage for the draft with its own talk page. For now leave suggestions on my talk page.

Also note that the reorganization does make it clear just how unbalanced the article is, especially in repeating some facts/views while ignoring so many other important ones. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC) '

Noam Chomsky quote is gratuitous

Removed here by another editor. who writes: This is section is simply an exposition of Rothbard's ethical beliefs. I don't see why a comment made by Noam Chomsky regarding the academic popularity of his beliefs, (it simply refers to "a critical examination" is at all relevant in this section.) The removed statement at the end of "Ethics" section says nothing. If Chomsky has something to say substantive about ethics, fine, put it in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I see Steeletrap reverted this without engaging in discussion. This is against policy. Please revert and discuss. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's called BRD. Chomsky's remark is clear from the contxt. Steeletrap (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We should be happy to find any notable independent scholar whose comments we can use to create an objective article. Why would we ignore the view of Chomsky, an authority in fields closely related to MR's life and work? SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary said, let's at least summarize what he wrote. When I went to find it I found he did NOT say what is written there: In a critical examination of Rothbard's ethical and political theories, Noam Chomsky notes that they are not taken seriously by mainstream philosophers and academics. A sloppy, WP:OR intepretation.

He said something much closer to the change I just made: Noam Chomsky notes that Rothbard was an example of "consistent libertarians" who describe a world "full of hate" where no one would cooperate to build roads and take polluters to court. He believes these views are "a special American abberation, it's not really serious." REF: Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: New York Press, 2002), p. 200-201.

Chomsky's comments are quite sloppy themselves, but that's not excuse to dress them up as some expert academic analysis. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of absurdly POV/OR language from old "Polemics" section

Such WP:POV/WP:OR editorializing is not our job. At this diff. Another one ripe for RfC if reverted since NPOV noticeboard doesn't get as much attention. And it seems so much of this sort of thing turns out to be cherry picked negative material that does not reflect the over all article cited. But since I know even this clearly ridiculous language will be reverted, I won't bother right now to check the sources. Geez... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Labeling arguably the most important and influential economist in history a "shameless plagiarist" and calling the Wealth of Nations a ripoff is polemical. As are ROthbard's insinuations about JM Keynes' homosexuality and J.S. Mill's manhoods. These are ad hominem criticisms. Rothbard intended them to be. Let's not misrepresent them. Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because an editor has a strong opinion of what someone writes and want to label it polemical or ad hominen, doesn't mean we can do it. We reflect what sources say. Feel free to revert your revert of my corrections per policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Best general sources on Rothbard

Since my big list of references about Rothbard may seem intimidating, those who want to jump right in and start adding some of the many important facts and analysis that are missing might look at shorter list. These are some of the best general references that either need further use, or are not in the article at all.

• Book biographies: Justin Raimondo, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard; David Gordon (philosopher), The Essential Rothbard; Gerard Casey, Murray Rothbard
• Shorter biographical entries: Ronald Hamowy, Editor, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Rothbard entry; Randall G. Holcombe, G Holcombe/The Great Austrian Economists.pdf The Great Austrian Economists; Powell, Benjamin and Stringham, Peter, ""Economics in Defense of Liberty: The Contribution of Murray Rothbard"; Liberty magazine, "Rothbard remembered"; Murray Rothbard, In Memoriam; Leonard P. Liggio, Murray N. Rothbard, 1926–1995; Raico, Ralph. "Rothbard at his Semi-Centennial"; Villanova University: Long listing of peer reviewed and other articles by or about Rothbard; *Mark Skousen bios in two of his books: here and another book here.
• Rothbard Interviews: 1972; 1973; 1976 (Penthouse Magazine, if you can find it); 1990;
• Various sources with lots of good info: Ronald Lora, William Henry Longton, editors, The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America; Israel Kirzner, The Meaning of the Market Process: Essays in the Development of Modern Austrian Economics.
• See also References listings under Obituaries/Tributes, Book reviews, Miscellaneous book and journal sources, Libertarian and Ludwig von Mises Institute sources and Collections of Rothbard writings.
  

Feel free to add any here that are particularly important. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

More problematic reverts

Comment on SPECIFICO and Steeletraps' latest problematic reverts, rather than create a section for each one:

1. Comments about "well-sourced stable article content" in a couple edit summaries. Just because editors exert WP:ownership of an article and revert practically all changes by other editors doesn't mean they are revert to "well-sourced stable article content"
2. This diff: Moving NY Times quote from lead writing "Lede should be summary of article content, not quotes of primary sources." Where does it say that in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section?? And what about Hoppe primary source quote which Steeletrap put back after I removed it as duplicative? NY Times more notable than Hoppe and notable quotes can be put in lead.
3. Diff: Revert of disgusting quote by competing ideologue and arch enemy William Buckley as last paragraph of article. That's like ending Paul Krugman's article with a nasty note by Robert P. Murphy saying "Krugman worked for Enron, so what do you expect?" (And since the article doesn't explain that his relationship was quite tenuous - $35,000 being pennies to Krugman - people would certainly take it in a negative way.)
4. This diff and this diff. This is the same source and it doesn't contradict itself. It says he was given a retainer to write the book and then had a part-timeand full time position as a senior analyst where he "where he reviewed books, journals, manuscripts and other material." Please review sources and don't try to construct scenarios from memory. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Buckley quote is harsh but it's RS. I don't object to wanting to end the article on a positive note (I tried to do this by adding the assessment of his co-workers). But removing WFB's comment is contrary to policy. Steeletrap (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for mentioning in a paragraph about the Rothbard-Buckley decades-long feud. It's not appropriate as an ending comment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2014

Remove the sentence (and citation) "Rothbard was born in the Bronx, but the family moved to a rent-controlled apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where he attended Birch Wathen, a private school on the Upper East Side.^{[23][unreliable source?]}" Rationale: the sentence is supported by a self-published blog; no editor has stepped for forward to defend the blog as acceptable RS. – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page again, due to the aggressive editing and edit warring that's been going on the past several days. If you would like to make edit requests, please do so, while remembering that you'll have to have a fair consensus (unless it's an uncontroversial edit) for it to go through. I will keep my eye on the talk page myself for edit requests. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you change the oddly technical sounding "male offspring" to "sons" or "boys" in the paragraph about Rothbard's schooling? Steeletrap (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on male offspring. (Or else please change to "children with XY chromosomes.") Also, the description of the "rent-controlled apartment" (Life and work: Education 1st paragraph) is not needed. If Rent control in New York is accurate, Rothbard was between 0 and 3 years old when this occurred and the economic conditions relative to his parents choice of apartments is not too relevant. Besides, everybody in NYC lived in rent controlled housing at that time. So what? – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the change from "male offspring" to sons. I do not agree with Srich's proposal concerning rent controlled apartment. Srich, if you'd like to open a thread on that, we can discuss your concerns. Let's not, however, engage in original research as to how many New Yorkers lived in which apartments at a given time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually a thread on the rent control info exists at Talk:Murray Rothbard#Anthony Flood not RS?Removal of Casey info. E.g., the sentence is supported by an SPS blogger. The Flood citation had been removed as such, and the removal was reverted. But no one has stepped up and said Flood is RS. With that in mind, the whole sentence, Flood citation and all, should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not convincing. Also, since the content is uncontroversial and true, it would be better just to tag citation needed rather than destroy article content prematurely. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree its better to tag the sentence as cn. That is exactly what I did when removing the SPS Flood citation. – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following you at all on this. You want to remove the article content but leave a citation needed tag without reference to which of the removed text needs a citation? You've outdone yourself, Sgt. See you tomorrow. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I made the male offspring change, but not the rent-controlled change. (Not sure why it's important, but there doesn't seem to be consensus just yet.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Further note: I looked up the source for the 2nd sentence of the Education sentence (as part of reviewing the edit request below) and in my quick scan I didn't find support for the rent-controlled bit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rent control is mentioned because it's a snide inference that Rothbard's father was a hypocrit for living in rent controlled housing, though of course back then most/all of it was. In last week I tried to deal with a host of such snide, WP:OR, inaccurately sourced, biased, etc. edits, everyone of which was reverted. Protection at least squelched my desire to improve the article for now. I'll give it a rest and hope the Arbitrators do the right thing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the rent-controlled thing illustrates the fact that Rothbard grew up with modest mines. However, on balance I don't think it adds much to the article. Steeletrap (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Without that source, you have the Rothbard's living in the Bronx with Murray going to school in Manhattan. Who would have thought their modest family domicile could be so problematic? The fact that they rented a rent-controlled apartment is consistent with their modest means at a time when many NY families owned row houses throughout the City and a few owned the early co-operative apartments sold within high rise buildings. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

These are absurd petty details compared to the fact that he was bullied in public school which you removed, or that he had the "Circle Bastiat" or more on his relationship with Mises which you probably would remove. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I have to change my mind after reading SPECIFICO. It shows the family had relatively modest means, which Murray had to overcome. It doesn't indicate hypocrisy: you can oppose a system and still take advantage of it as an individual (one person's action isn't sufficient to perpetuate a system). Steeletrap (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)