Talk:David Gordon (philosopher)

Refs for David Gordon (philosopher)

There are a number of David Gordons so a description defining which one he is is necessary. I couldn't find any WP:RS calling Gordon a "natural law philosopher." If there is one, please add quickly as a reference. While Gordon writes mostly on libertarian and Austrian economic philosophy and views, I also can't find him identifying himself as a libertarian. So unless someone can find a reference there, I would suggest renaming article "David Gordon (author)" since that is undeniable and it is not currently used for someone else. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuing my search I do find that Peter J. Boettke describes Gordon in a review of one of his books in a Reason paper as "a philosopher and intellectual historian who is deeply influenced by the Rothbardinan strand of economics." Good start! And material can be ref for review of one of his books. Also G Therborn describes him as a "libertarian philosopher" in - Contemporary Sociology, 1992 at JSTOR.CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Polymath

As I stated in my edit summary the reason the polymath statement doesn't belong in the article is that the cited newspaper is not a competent RS to make that statement -- which is a statement of opinion -- in any but a casual sense inappropriate for the WP article of a notable academic. Please undo the reinsertion, which, from its edit summary, appears to have been done without understanding the reason for my removal of the non-RS content. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Who in the world is qualified to call anyone a polymath? Simply a rhetorical question because the answer is not critical. The entire OCR editorial board was there, along with 100+ others to hear Gordon et al speak. Is the OCR a single perfect RS with no POV? No. They do like libertarians, and with that in mind the sentence has been modified to reflect that the statement came from the editorial page. But it does serve to inform the reader, however slightly, that Gordon has multiple talents. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just stunned that you don't appear to understand what WP:RS is all about. It's about expertise, rigor, and judgment commensurate with the WP content for which it's used. A newspaper editorial board opining about a noted academic is like the College of Cardinals voting to select the Cy Young Award winner. You don't even have a relevant definiation of the term in context or any relationship to the narrative of Gordon's work. It's horrible. SPECIFICO talk 05:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pull your finger out of the lightbulb socket and you'll feel less stunned. Let some other editors opine. Oh, when you say "the cited newspaper", are you referring to the OCR in particular? What if another newspaper had said the same thing, would your opinion differ? (Sorry to see that you feel it's horrible.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the OCR editorial is a kind of puffery/peacock writing (per Wiki MOS), as is most of this following paragraph: Murray Rothbard described Gordon as a friend and "Mr. Erudition." In Hans-Hermann Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense, Luigi Marco Bassani and Carlo Lottieri described Gordon as the "semiofficial reviewer of the libertarian community." Journalist Brian Doherty, in his foreword to Rothbard's Strictly Confidential (2010), writes that Gordon is "the only man around who knows as much as Rothbard did when it comes to the historical, philosophical and economic background of libertarianism." The Orange Country Register in an editorial described Gordon as a "polymath." This article could use some more content related to the criticism of scholars who disagree with Gordon.Parkwells (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

References

AfD Candidate ?

Gordon's connections to the world appear to be almost solely via the Mises Institute circle of affiliates. I think we need to establish notability in order to expand or even to retain this article. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the article again; Gordon is reviewed in American Political Science Review and The Review of Austrian Economics. If you take a look at Google Scholar you'll see his Resurrecting Marx has been cited many times as a source. His The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics has also been cited by others. He is the editor of a scholarly journal. These accomplishments add up to sufficient notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, but keep digging for non-vMI stuff. Thanks for your effort. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Bink, you do realize that the Mises Institute is fringe/heterodox, and that editorship of them does not make one a notable academic? If you still believe they are mainstream, your edits have to be systematically disregarded, based as they are on an eviden falsehood. Steeletrap (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a lot of gall to talk about systematic problems, you who have been working so hard for nearly a year to reduce the respectability of anyone remotely LvMI. I don't give a crap about LvMI but I can see what you are up to.

In this case Gordon has been reviewed in a sufficient number of scholarly journals, cited by a sufficient number of authors, and that's just counting the ones you think are untainted by LvMI. His LvMI work also counts toward notability in that a large body of observers, heterodox though they may be, have been influenced by Gordon. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Bink, please express yourself with reference to content and not contributors or gall. Thanks. I note that much of the additional content is the same kind of generally negative critical appraisal which other editors have called "biased" in other of the Mises Fellows' articles. Anyway more content is better, I hope you will find additional material to add. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've 'looked into' this and it does seem to be the case that Gordon (like Murray) attracts more RS mention than your average Misesian. However, the bulk of this appears to be negative. Steeletrap (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion, thanks to SRich. Check it out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:DLS fits the situation. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh Dear!! Am I missing something? What was deleted? SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment?

I think the whole Assessment section needs to be overhauled. I'm not exactly sure in what direction, but I haven't seen a section like it on any other biography I've read. It seems to just be fluff, which is weird considering that in the section before there were several serious critiques of him. Either the section could just be merged into the main body of the text, or more "assessments" of him could be added. Thoughts? I am pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so I don't necessarily want to completely change a page on my own without some other opinions. MoreHans (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A merging of the sections might be appropriate. A number of opinions cited in the article appear to be from his think tank colleagues, who are not independent sources. Those relationships should be clarified if they are disclosed in the cited sources, and some adjustments may be needed for WP:DUEWEIGHT. Llll5032 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)