Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:38, 28 July 2013

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

Template:WP1.0

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

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

Archives

2004-2009 2010–2012

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

Philosopher, Journalist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One ref here;

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

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

Lead problems

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

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

Overstuffed Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

Sources identify Rothbard first as "Austrian economist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Economist infobox

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

Rothbard (Franco comparison)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with 6/1/13 edits

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

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

Admin recommends RfC/WP:RSN

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

Response to tags

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

OT means what?

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

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

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

Good secondary sources on Rothbard

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

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

Removing duplicate refs from Bibliographies/Further reading, etc

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

I think in following cases the information should be duplicated:

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

FYI, Bibliography article on Rothbard

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

Good Article Review?

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

Favor political theorist first

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

Favor economist first

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

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

Comments: (threaded discussions in response to comments above)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To Tourchiest, Only 10 lines of this article discuss Rothbard's economics. The rest is describing Rothbard the political theorist, author, and political activist. It's not OR that says Political Theorist first. The weight of the Reliable Sources here emphasize his legacy as a political theorist. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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