Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Noting Barnes' Holocaust Denial

Do any editors object to me describing Barnes as a Holocaust Denier in the "historical revisionism" part? This fits with the broader narrative of the RS, which criticizes Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" of denialism owing to his collaboration on World War II "revisionism" with another denialist (James J. Martin). That Barnes was a denier (and indeed, was known in large part for being a denier ) is a matter of fact and noted by dozens of RS throughout his Wikipedia page; so at a strictly descriptive level, describing him as such is equally well-founded to describing him as a "Columbia University historian." The only reason I am asking rather than being WP:Bold is to avoid erroneous allegations of "bias" by pro-Misesian editors. Steeletrap (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Provided the sources for Rothbard's connection with Barnes also describe Barnes as a holocaust denier. Otherwise it is synthesis. Compare for example saying "x was an admirer of the anti-Semite Winston Churchill." TFD (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I have reverted my addition of this material (at least for the moment) pending further discussion. At the outset, I have to say I disagree with you. Rothbard endorsed Barnes' WWII revisionism, which was rooted in denial of the Holocaust (admiration of Churchill, on the other hand, is typically rooted in his political leadership, not his anti-semitic personal views). Noting that Barnes was a denier is as contextually relevant (and as immune from charges of SYN) as noting he was an historian at Columbia U. The National Review article does not name Barnes specifically (though it does name James Martin), but it criticizes Rothbard for endorsing "World War II revisionism" written by Holocaust deniers. The fact is contextually relevant and as long as we don't use it to draw an unwarranted conclusion (e.g. that Rothbard was/was not a denier), I think it passes the OR test. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I re-read WP:SYNTH and it doesn't seem to support TFD's requirement that the same source that mentions Rothbard and Barnes has to also refer to the historical revisionism as Holocaust denial. There is no question that Barnes' brand of revision was focused on denying the Holocaust and there is no question that Rothbard knew this. There is therefore no synthesis involved. On this basis, I'd be comfortable restoring the phrase, but I'm going to instead wait and allow TFD to respond, hopefully by citing some part of the policy to support the additional requirement. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The synthesis is implicit. As Steeletrap said, "Rothbard endorsed Barnes' WWII revisionism, which was rooted in denial of the Holocaust." That is the point you wish to convey, but it is not in the sources provided. If it is "contextually relevant," the secondary sources should mention it. Barnes' revisionism was wider than holocaust denial and there is no evidence that Rothbard supported holocaust denial. Like Barnes and Pat Buchanan for that matter, he thought the U.S. should have stayed out of the war - Barnes developed that opinion before the holocaust. There is a parallel with modern right-wingers who defend Ernst Nolte. Both were respected scholars whose extreme views later isolated them from the mainstream. Rothbard could be criticized for continuing to associate with Barnes and for writing an obituary that neglected to mention his holocaust denial. But again, we need sources to say that. People who admire Churchill are mostly unaware of his anti-Semitism, although extremists frequently quote his writings on Jews. But why anyone admires him is a matter of judgment, not something for us to determine. TFD (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I disagree with a lot of what you say, given what the National Review sources says about Rothbard. Per the RS, Rothbard's promotion of denier historians served the purpose of denigrating the moral justification for the war, which Rothbard bitterly opposed. I don't think the Churchill analogy works; if I read to see in the article of, say, Newt Gingrich, "he admired Winston Churchill, an anti-Semite", the latter statment wouldn't be synthesis so much as awkward and out of place. The Holocaust denier characterization of Barnes, on the other hand, is very topical and contextually appropriate, given the broad RS criticism of Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" with Holocaust denial. (akin, as I say, to mentioning that he taught at Columbia.)

However, you have raised enough doubt in my mind that I'm going to look for a more specific source prior to proceeding. Better to not to add any info at all than to add (potentially) problematic, policy-violating stuff! Steeletrap (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree about the need for sources to avoid synthesis. Nonetheless, the sources exist:

http://www.anti-semitism.net/holocaust-revisionism/holocaust-controversies-murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.php

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n3p33_Weber.html

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard117.html

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard165.html

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/10/6/202813/847

That should be more than enough. MilesMoney (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. The Institute for Historical Review for example questions the holocaust. If we use it here, it creates a precedent to use it for articles about the holocaust. TFD (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all of them are or contain reliable sources. The IHR is indeed what you say, but that's what makes them reliable for describing their own allies. LewRockwell.com is simply republishing Rothbard's work, which is itself a reliable source on Rothbard's views. And Talk2Action contains a link to a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Writings by allies are not rs if they are not otherwise rs. Hence one of the problems with the article was that too much of it came from the writings of Rothbard allies. None of the sources you present from Rothbard call Barnes a "holocaust denier." Your first source btw is a taken from a posting to a non-rs site, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/. You can go to blogspot.com and create your own blog free and allow anyone to post - it does not make it rs. TFD (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Start with the Ames article, which says:

Under Koch's influence and funding, LeFevre started publishing reams of what libertarians call "historical revisionism"--a euphemism for Holocaust denial propaganda--which the Holocaust Museum notes on its timeline.

Here we have a reliable source equating historical revisionism, which Rothbard endorsed, and Holocaust denial. This removes any synthesis on our part. With the supposed gap bridged, we can now bring in Barnes' own status as a confirmed Holocaust denier. MilesMoney (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your argument, Miles, but I have enough doubt about it to keep Barnes's denial out of it until we find an RS. We probably will be able to find one eventually (the one we currently quote specifically criticizes Rothbard's "culpable indulgence" in Holocaust denial through his praise of "revisionist" (read: denier) James J. Martin. Steeletrap (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Historical revisionism can be a euphemism for holocaust denial, particularly when it is used to described someone's views on the holocaust. OTOH, its strict meaning, which is also widely used, is challenging orthodox views, which is probably what Rothbard meant when he wrote in 1968 that Barnes was "the father and the catalyst for all of World War II revisionism." I believe the term became a euphemism for holocaust denial during the 1980s trials of Keegstra, Zundel and others. TFD (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. For Barnes in particular, denial of the Holocaust and apologism for Nazi war crimes was seminal to revisionism. It's simply implausible that Rothbard wouldn't have known about all this when he broadly and unequivocally endorses Barnes' WWII revisionism. However, I agree with you that we have to find a source that specifically criticizes Rothbard for supporting "historical reviisonist" work characterized by denial. Steeletrap (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, we know for a fact (with reliable sources, naturally) that Barnes' version of "World War II revisionism" is indeed Holocaust denial. And we don't even have to do our own research for this because the link is spelled out in a reliable source. I'm sorry, TFD, but while I usually find your points at least reasonable, the sense of this one eludes me entirely. MilesMoney (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course Rothbard was aware of Barnes' holocaust denial, but that is not what he meant when he used the term "historical revisionism.", which is quite clear from reading the essays that you have linked. Also, the modern meaning of the word would not be used for another decade. See The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies, p. 563: "The IHR [founded 1978] presented itself as an advocate of historical "revisionism," thus appropriating a familiar term for the long-standing and respected practice of questioning and amending accepted historical conclusions in light of new evidence."[1] Barnes revisionism was wider than holocaust denial. He had been known as a leading, and respected, "revisionist" historian since the 1920s when he said that the U.S. should not have entered the First World War. His revisionist view of the Second World War, which he developed before the holocaust, was that the U.S. should not enter the war, although he added holocaust denial after the war ended. See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, with all due respect, you're putting your own original research above our sources. There's no doubt that Rothbard was familiar with Barnes' Holocaust denial when he endorsed the man for historical revisionism. You'd need a reliable source to say otherwise, and you lack any. MilesMoney (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You introduced or (WP:SYN) when you brought in one source that said Rothbard praised revisionism and another that said revisionism was code for holocaust denial. I pointed out the flaw in your OR by showing that Rothbard had written his comments in 1968, while revisionism only became a codeword in 1978. I mentioned that because I assumed you were interested in improving the article following policy. Your responses show you are not and discussion with you is pointless. If you want to continue with this discussion, it is better to take it to WP:NORN or WP:NPOVN. BTW "with due respect" is code for "I do not respect what you said." TFD (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The point I made is that Rothbard knew all about Barnes' Holocaust denial when he endorsed his efforts at historical revisionism. You do not deny this.

Two quick things. First, you wrote "you are not and". I think there's a word missing and I'm not willing to guess. Second, "with all due respect" means that I respect you but your current argument is far below your usual standards. TFD, I've seen you be reasonable so I know you can do it. I'm just asking that you do it for this issue, too. MilesMoney (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Rothbard wrote the effusive introduction to the Spring 1966 Rampart journal issue containing "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," by Barnes, in which he denies gas chambers and casts aspersions on Nazi war crimes. Barnes was already translating Rassinier and talking about Zionist hoaxes by 1964, so Rothbard, learned as he was, clearly knew what he was up to. That bit is WP:Syn, though, so not quit relevant (nor can we include, of course, hearsay from libertarian activist Chris Tame that Rothbard, too, denied the gas chambers). That said, Rothbard unequivocally endorsed "revisionism" -- in both the Charles Beard and Paul Rassinier vein -- in the Rampart intro. The issue also contains another Holocaust-doubting piece by James J. Martin. Not being schooled enough on Wiki policy, is Rothbard endorsing the views relevant, since by the mid-60s this was firmly in denier territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.132.160 (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey anon. First, I want to commend you for your edit; it tells the truth about Barnes, and let's our readership know what the "historical revisionist" work Murray broadly endorsed was. It's simply preposterous to suggest that Murray's unqualified endorsements of Barnes' "revisionism" had nothing whatsoever to do with denial, when that revisionism was defined by denial; he obviously knew about and tacitly approved, or at least had no problem with, his denial. I had to revert it because I didn't see a source. Please find a link with your source and post it on this talk page, and we'll see if we can post it. I would in the meantime suggest reading WP:Syn to illustrate some of the problems with your initial edit. Steeletrap (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

All right, so here's the Summer 1966 Rampart Journal put out by Robert LeFevre on WWII revisionism: http://mises.org/%28S%2841o1x2q4ryodyh2cxfpfov45%29%29/document/4255/ Rothbard's introduction is already cited on the Wiki, but there's no mention of the context in which "The Importance of Revisionism For Our Time" was published -- as an introduction to a highly controversial publication. This 1966 Rampart issue's Barnes article -- prefaced by Rothbard -- is cited in part by the USHMM (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008003), and by noted scholar Deborah Lipstadt, as an example of early Holocaust denial (http://archive.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_deniers_print.asp). Historian Stephen Atkins also mentions Barnes' denialism in another 1966 issue of Rampart (http://books.google.co.th/books?id=M9Uj6u6b-ZIC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=rampart+journal+1966+holocaust+denial&source=bl&ots=CNWmatH9vh&sig=ZzzwNWetdyOp6ar-XeAqPy1ZywE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ME5zUp-IDoOPrQeAmIGgCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=rampart%20journal%201966%20holocaust%20denial&f=false). I think you can make a direct, primary connection that Rothbard was aware of this. In his introduction, Rothbard notes that WWII revisionism is bringing "truth" to a "public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda" -- and that's what much of the issue is devoted to. It explores how "Germanophobia" allegedly embellished Nazi bellicosity and how stories of German brutality are more in the realm of Gruselgeschichte and propaganda like the infamous Bryce Report of the First World War. Barnes talks about "alleged extermination," by gas and observes that "the current Germanophobia is based on the assertion that Hitler and his entourage ordered the murder of six million Jews." Michael Connors claims, among other things, in his Rampart piece that "even though some genuinely impartial tribunal should one day find that national socialist war crimes were fully as brutal and extensive as has been alleged in the most extreme of the most recent charges, it could still be cogently argued that they were at least equaled and possibly surpassed by those of German's enemies." Connor's claims on page 90 that the 1964 Frankfurt Auschwitz trials for crimes "allegedly committed" (note that this is two years after a West German court ruled they were, indeed, committed) were stretched for a year for publicity purposes, and that the lifting on limitation statutes in 1965 West Germany mirrors this. There are other examples, but many of the Journal's over-arching theses weave a tale of Western malfeasance and German victimization. It is this "revisionism" that Rothbard so emphatically endorsed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.132.160 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to a reliable source that makes the same connection you do. BTW Hayek and von Mises were listed as academic advisers on the Rampart's issue, and Charles Koch was a student at Rampart College. I started a new thread below on your edit. TFD (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Anon, I think your source is a bit of a stretch. On WP we typically need independent sources that explicitly draw these connections. You can say "Rothbard wrote the introduction in a journal that published Barnes and Martin." But I think it would be WP:SYN to try to connect Rothbard to the denial presented therein. I wish more secondary sources talked about it, because he obviously was "culpably indulgent" in denial (as NR says), since he knew what Barnes and Martin were about and still fully endorsed their work.

BTW TFD - I don't think the fact that Koch et al were associated with the publication exonerates it. Martin Ames (The Nation, New York Press) presents pretty strong evidence of a Koch connection to the deniers a few decades ago. (I doubt Koch still would indulge such nonsense since Cato is much more mainstream these days, but at one point they were devoted to promoting the ideas of Rothbard, which included crackpot "historical revisionism" whose primary influences were deniers.) The article requires a subscription to read, but a summary can be seen here. (1) Ames' article mentions Koch, Gary North, and LeFevre, but sadly not Rothbard. Steeletrap (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Revisionism

An edit was added with the notation, "edited to clarify that the revisionism Rothbard endorsed from Barnes and other Rampart journal contributers sought to assign greater blame on the Western Allies and downplay the scale and scope of German wartime atrocities."[2] The edits are:

1. "He was influenced by and a champion of early Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes, who by the 1960s was largely discredited in academia on account of his prolific Holocaust denial.
2. "Rothbard endorsed Barnes's revisionism on World War II and the Cold War, which included Barnes's denial of gas chambers and his alternate explanations for American entry into the war, and promoted him as an influence for revisionists."

Only one of the sources used refers to holocaust denial. (International Encyclopedia of Political Science, p. 2310.[3]) It says that Barnes, who began his career in the 1920s, inspired two distinct groups: libertarians, including Rothbard, connected to the LvMI and conspiracy theorists, including Holocaust deniers.

This edit appears to violate both synthesis and neutrality.

TFD (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My mistake on synthesis -- I'm a bit new to all this. Lipstadt and several others (USHMM, Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies) make a distinction between Barnes' WWII revisionism and that of legitimate revisionists, and the latter explicitly connects Barnes with the "illegitimate" bridge between legitimate revisionism and Holocaust denial. Lipstadt notes in 'Denying the Holocaust' that Barnes is a "cult historian" among libertarians whose standing among historians is tarnished because of his revisionism on WWII, which was a form of nascent Holocaust denial. And how is Mark Ames as a RS? His article on Charles Koch and Rampart College, cited earlier but not really touched upon, goes into detail on how Koch and LeFevre sought to dedicate the spring 1966 issue of the Rampart Journal to minimizing Axis war crimes. Unfortunately, it's beyond a paywall. But yeah, broadly speaking I get WP:Syn now and understand it's not appropriate to link Rothbard directly to denialism without an RS explicitly stating as much. However, I feel that it's a relevant part of Rothbard's political career that he did, indeed, endorse what are considered by some scholars to be early works of Holocaust denial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) (by 180.183.179.157)

Another policy to learn about is: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Once you realized that this is not usable info, there is no reason to go on and on about what is not usable. Otherwise someone else could go on and on about their opinions on what your wrote, all irrelevant to the article. Please read about and follow policy. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Anon's post did violate policy, but it was made in good faith with a plausible rationale. Speaking of WP guidelines, I would remind Carol not to bite a noob by making erroneous, insulting accusations that s/he is "soapboxing." (TFD certainly isn't biting, but s/he could be friendlier to anon).

Incidentally, anon, Carol misunderstands "Soapbox", which would cover something like speculation about Murray's sex life but not discussion of the work of historians he unequivocally endorse. That stuff is perfect for the talk page, and hopefully we can find more RS that substantiate the connection. (We have some criticizing him for the Martin association but Not Barnes.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I know Newbies can have a long learning curve. You have been here six months and despite multiple editors telling you, wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your view that all economists of a certain class are cranks and therefor you can put most of your efforts into find obscure rants or non-WP:RS criticism of them and making them the focus of their articles. That's against Not a Forum, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc. However, as more and more editors become aware of it, and comment on it, the problem with be solved in one way or another... User:Carolmooredc 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please review WP:Civil and WP:PA and resolve to focus on content, not contributors. Steeletrap (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example of a "biased" content I added to the article a few weeks back. "Mark Skousen of Grantham University and the Foundation for Economic Education, a critic of mainstream economics,[40] praises Rothbard as brilliant, his writing style persuasive, his economic arguments nuanced and logically rigorous, and his Misesian methodology sound.[18] However, citing Rothbard's absence of academic publications, Skousen concedes that Rothbard was effectively "outside the discipline" of mainstream economics and that his work "fell on deaf ears" outside his ideological circles." My edit details an economist's effusive praise of Rothbard (who is limited in his connection to LvMI), published in an RS. However, it also notes that this supporter of Rothbard regarded him to be out of the mainstream, and noted his refusal to publish in academic journals. Ditto Hoppe, who says that Rothbard embraced a methodology regarded by the mainstream as "dogmatic and unscientific."

I am "biased" against the non-NPOV and factually false insinuation of many editors that Rothbard was in the mainstream. Old versions of the page misrepresented this, and I'm proud that the content I've added accurately represents it. As to most material being negative, that's simply because most RS responses to Rothbard (excluding non-RS, connected LvMI co-workers) have been very negative. I will of course add any positive (non-coworker) RS to the article you find, as I added the Skousen stuff.

Remember that Wikipedia goes off of mainstream sources. Do you, Carol, really believe that mainstream sources aren't going to tend to be critical of a view that Harry Barnes' "World war II revisionism" is sound, that torture of criminal suspects or letting one's children starve to death is a legitimate expression of property rights, and that economics shouldn't use the scientific method? Steeletrap (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Having read the source this is based on, I have to admit that you wrote an eminently fair, balanced summary. You kept the praise but you also put it in context. It should be lauded on WP:NPOV as a canonical example of how to do it right. MilesMoney (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was watching a Malcolm Gladwell interview and he talked about new ideas being suppressed by the mainstream and I thought of what Steeletrap wrote above. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to suppress new ideas by focusing on every obscure questionable comment a few adherents of the idea have made in order to tarnish and crush the idea itself. But that seems to me to be just what a three editors seem to be doing on these Austrian economics articles. User:Carolmooredc talk 06:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Austrian economics counts as a new idea, and I'm not sure that our policies would favor it even if it did. We're expected to report the mainstream, with proportional coverage of minority views, and little to no coverage of fringe ones. All told, I'm not sure I understand what your point here is. Perhaps you could explain by referencing relevant policy. MilesMoney (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ever read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It does not mean using Self-Published Blog sources to trash people while finding excuses to delete good sources that include lots of material on the topic, like several of the sources mentioned here Murray_Rothbard#cite_note-:4-1 which have not even been mined for their neutral and important info.

One of these days I'll catch up with all my personal work that I fell behind on dealing with extreme pov editing 6 hours a day from April-August, and on and off the last couple weeks, and just put a whole bunch of that kind of material in. And deal with the crackpot material which Rothbard spewed from time to time in an NPOV way, assuming it really is a decent WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc talk 15:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, "Austrian economics" is not unique to the Mises institute. There are Hayekian and Misesian wings of Austrianism, the latter of which is represented at the Mises Institute, and is as fringe as Rothbard's views on history and children's rights. Steeletrap (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I agree on self-published sources. But we don't use those on this page (unless you can't LewRockell.com., which you/the community generally don't). They can however be properly used on WP if written by experts writing about their subject matter. Steeletrap (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The book Holocaust Denial has an interesting section about Barnes (pp. 146-147).[4] Barnes was a respected revisionist historian until he wrote about the Second World War. While he trivialized the holocaust, he did not come out as a deniar until 1966, and denial never became part of Rothbard's thinking. Trivialization otoh is within the mainstream. See for example, The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard. Certainly if one were to write a biography of Rothbard one would analyze his relationship with Barnes and comment on its wisdom and morality. But until someone does that we are restricted by the three pillars of content policy, RS, NOR, and NPOV. TFD (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Deborah Lipstadt book indicates that Barnes was ostracized far earlier than 1966, and engaged in denial (and blatant nazi/Hitler apologetics) starting in the early 1950s. In any case, Rothbard praised Barnes post-1966 (including in the obit) and noted that he was an 'outcast' and rejected by 'virtually all' of his peers. I do agree that we can't add sources talking about his denial unless they explicitly connect it with Rothbard (we have such a source for denier James J. Martin, also praised by Rothbard). But it strains credulity to say he wasn't aware of this or somehow wasn't tacitly approving it by broadly endorsing Barnes' "World War II revisionism". Steeletrap (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lipstadt wrote, "Some of his numerous books and articles...were used as required texts through the 1960s at prestigious American universities, including Harvard and Columbia. Barnes also lectured widely at other universities throughout the United States...." (Denying the Holocaust) She does not say that Barnes promoted holocaust denial before 1966, and says his anti-Semitism "did not generally pervade his articles until the late 1960s". Also, the publication of his article in Rampart "demonstrated the academic community's willingness to regard Barnes' behavior as excusable excess." TFD (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your reading of Lipstadt. Read pages 83-87. It's pretty clear she thinks he was engaged in 'soft' denial and nazi apologism beginning in the 1950s. He had a very long career, and the denial came in the tail end of it. His non-WWII books were used for a time, but he was ostracized soon after he professed his denial openly. Steeletrap (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I was quoting directly. Nonetheless his books remained texts at Harvard (which for some reason is held to a lower standard than LvMI) and, according to Lipstadt, he continued to invited to lecture at universities across America. Holocaust trivialization and the rehabilitation of fascism are rife in respectable history. You need to provide a source that comments directly on Rothbard and holocaust denial before drawing the connection in the article. TFD (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, I thought you were disagreeing with Steele, but I'm not so sure anymore. You don't deny that his Nazi apologism started in the 1950's. You don't deny that his non-WWII books were the ones used. You don't deny that he was ostracized once his Holocaust denial was fully out in the open. Instead, you bring up some other things that aren't particularly important. What are you actually getting at here? If you disagree with Steele, I would hope that you would argue against her primary claims or just say you accept them. Otherwise, I'm confused about your goals. MilesMoney (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am saying we cannot take different bits of information and put them together regardless of where sources say they are related because that is synthesis. I also think it is unproductive to spend months trying to add synthesis in order to discredit minor figures when effort could be better spent improving articles about groups and individuals for which extensive sources actually exist. TFD (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not doing any such thing, so you've now brought up yet another argument. I can't keep track. MilesMoney (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify TFD, I agree with you that we need a secondary source tying these things together. Steeletrap (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Evolution

This edit removed the section about Rothbard's evolution denialism, with the comment saying, "remove WP:OR interpretation from throw away comment". This does not match the removed material, which quoted Rockwell, a close associate of Rothbard's, on the latter's views regarding evolution. There's no original research involved here; Rockwell just says it outright and we quote him. He's a reliable secondary source, and no other reasons have been offered for removal.

I politely suggest that this change be reverted. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Removed unclear, unsubstantiated sentence on evolution
At this diff removed sentence In the course of defending Ron Paul from Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Paul's "evolution denial," Rothbard's longtime friend and confidante Lew Rockwell noted that, like Paul, Rothbard "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism". refed with Lew Rockwell blog entry

• 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 talk 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, I was under the impression that - per your edit (1) on the Hoppe page (where you also made the mistake of misattributing a quote from Kinsella to Hoppe) -- it is your view that Lew Rockwell dot com blog posts are RS? Perhaps an argument for removing the content exists, but basing it on the fact that it came from the Lewrockwell.com blog is a blatant double-standard on your part, and makes your edits look like an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Incidentally, Rockwell was saying Rothbard's views were the same of Paul's, who outright denies evolution, per the Andrew Sullivan source Rockwell cites. Steeletrap (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This might be relevant. MilesMoney (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if Carol has changed her mind about whether LRC falls is a news site with a blog or a SPS, if it is the latter, Lew's opinion can still be published because he is a recognized, public expert on the thought of dead person Murray Rothbard (per WP:SPS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) Steeletrap unsigned

It's just edit warring to put this back without giving others a chance to opine. I personally don't remember an example of a Rockwell blog entry being used before, as opposed to a thought out article. But as I said, it's just a throw a way comment that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Also note Evolution denialism is total WP:OR since the article Rockwell links to is a reader's comments, not Sullivan. Geez.

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?? There certainly has been a lot of speculation by scientists about some sort of intelligence being a part of evolution that is hardly against evolution. I barely looked at Reed's other article which Rockwell refers to, but it seems to be more against outlawing ideas than it is about supporting the idea that God the Patriarch created "man" 4000 years ago or whatever creationists believe. (Also note that Henri Berson in Creative Evolution (book) and George_Bernard_Shaw#Religion both wrote about something they called creative evolution, which is a form of emergent evolution. So I would say this is rather pov and shoddy interpretation of what Rockwell is inferring. If it's kept in you would have to talk about what Reed says, but then you really are getting into more OR, even if it may be more factual OR than your not very accurate interpretation. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the text of the article just quotes what Lew said: he said Rothbard's views were "like" Paul's, who denied evolution. Are you suggesting that Rockwell is not an RS for Rothbard's views? Steeletrap (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

You mean like this? MilesMoney (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I don't think that's typically the standard of WP. Esp. in a page like this, one non-primary sourced RS mention is typically regarded as sufficient for inclusion in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

One source is all that is required to support anything entered, per rs. However whether something should be entered is a matter of weight. If our approach is to search for every possible negative statement and add it to the article then it will not be neutral. MilesMoney, your source about Rockwell's views on evolution is not about biological evolution. TFD (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm upset that you think we're "searching" for negative statements. We're trying to make sure we have information on all of Rothbard's views on the major issues. It's your opinion -- not shared by Llewellyn Rockwell or Ron Paul, among other people -- that evolution denial is a bad thing. Regarding WP:Weight, the source takes up a total of one sentence. Steeletrap (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

See, I'm not the only person who thinks so. I think the large majority of material you add to Austrian economics related articles is negative or is presented in such way to convey a negative implication, as I've said ad nauseum. Would Steeletrap be willing to go to Dispute Resolution to discuss various examples of Steeletrap's removal of material which others have found problematic to understand why this keeps being an issue? I've suggested elsewhere SPECIFICO's do so regarding his constant removal of appropriate info. These obviously should be discussed at separate times and I'd prefer to start with SPECIFICO since that's easier to discuss. Please reply. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Now you're just speculating. Many intellectuals don't make public views that are important to them. If documented by RS (in this case, by Lew Rockwell), these views can still be covered on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Verify what?

This edit adds a "verify source" tag, but it's unclear what needs verifying. Is there some doubt that the article, posted on www.rockwell.com and listing Rockwell in its byline, is by Rockwell? Is there any doubt that it identifies Rothbard as denying evolution? What part needs verification? If none, then the tag should be removed, as it would unduly cast doubt where there is none. MilesMoney (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me break it down. The sentence in question is In the course of defending Ron Paul from Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Paul's "evolution denial," Rothbard's longtime friend and confidante Lew Rockwell noted that, like Paul, Rothbard "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism". with the ref: Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr (December 29, 2007). "Ron Paul's 'Evolution Denial'?" LewRockwell.com

• Where does Rockwell say he is defending Ron Paul from Sullivan? The Link Rockwell provides leads to a letter to the editor on evolution denial. He's defending him against a letter to the editor. Got it? User:Carolmooredc talk 23:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. The relevant part is that Rockwell tells us Rothbard denied evolution. The rest is irrelevant and doesn't need to be verified. We could just cut it down to, "According to Rockwell, Rothbard's view was...". MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Rockwell writes: Oh please ([5] to letter to editor). Ron is a scientist, and like the late Murray Rothbard (who, unlike Ron, was not a man of faith), has doubts about the official church of Darwinism. He then links to two Reed articles from which one is supposed to get an idea of what Paul and Rothbard believes. If you read the first Reed article it details some issues that some have with some points of Darwinism which has a whole range of theories and which Reed describes as something of a religion itself. It doesn't say Reed or Rothbard disagrees that evolution happens, just that there may be some points of contention. See the Emergent evolution article. Read Bergson and Shaw on "creative evolution". Doubts about some aspects of Darwinism is not rejection of evolution. Evolutionary theory isn't Stalinism, and discussion of fine points is allowed. In any case, the whole thing is just misinterpretation at best and bull headed WP:OR at worst. User:Carolmooredc talk 23:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask again: what part do you want verified? MilesMoney (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The title is Ron Paul’s ‘Evolution Denial’? Obviously the links to the rest of the article is debunking that, not confirming it. Plus, for the third time, Andrew Sullivan is not mentioned in either the article or the link. Got it?? User:Carolmooredc talk 23:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sullivan is linked to. Saying Sullivan "isn't mentioned" is only true in a tortured technical sense. Sullivan's view on the issues -- and Paul's statements -- are clear. Steeletrap (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? This one links to a letter to the editor. I don't see any link back to an Andrew Sullivan article. Can you provide it? In any case, the whole interpretation of what Rockwell writes is false and either interpretation is just in WP:OR/synth territory. User:Carolmooredc talk 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the Daily Dish blog that is linked to is Sullivan's personal blog (syndicated by the Atlantic at the time, just as Krugman's personal blog is syndicated by the NYT). The characterization "evolution denial" was his; he was using a reader's letter to illustrate that point.

I would be open to a view that LewRockwell.com is generally not a reliable or notable source, if you want to make that argument. But the article doesn't misrepresent Rockwell's statements. Steeletrap (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be accurate now, but not a decent source for any discussion of Rothbard's views on the topic; it's all inference. Rockwell's written longer articles at his website, mostly about himself, that were usable in the past. And some things on Rothbard, if detailed and having some refs, are usable too. But this really is a self-published blog and generally NOT usable unless the expertise is more detailed than this. We'll see what others besides the three of you have to say on the topic. It's still trivial and not fit for the encyclopedia. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The RS analysis is not a black & white/generally reliable v. generally non-reliable process. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. LRC, as a group blog, may be reliable for some items, such as those in which the posters are commenting in their areas of expertise. But it may not be RS if they are commenting on subjects in which they are not published experts. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is: Is Rockwell a reliable source for Rothbard's views. We are not discussing the scientific soundness of Rothbard's views but only whether he held them. Lew Rockwell was Rothbard's closest confidante -- they spoke every day -- and has published dozens of articles about him. He is a reliable source for and recognized authority on the views of Rothbard. One sentence regarding the blog post on evolution doesn't seem to be undue. Steeletrap (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact someone knows something does not make them rs. Skilling and Lay knew each other, so presumably you would have considered them rs for each others' innocence. TFD (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Look TFD, I've tried to work charitably with all of you. I think it's clear from the content I've added (Skousen) and removed (the primary sourced Bell Curve stuf) from the Rothbard article that I'm not out to "get him", but rather out to inform our readers of his RS-sourced views on a host of issues.

Instead of these accusations of bad faith, let's try to break down our disagreement. You say there is undue weight and I disagree, because it only takes up one sentence. You say it is an unreliable source and I disagree. The community (Carol, Srich and Bink included on other occasions, such as the addition of the Stephan Kinsella LewRockwell.com blog post in reply to criticism of Hans-Hermann Hoppe for homophobia) has deemed the LRC blog an RS. We can't selectively apply that judgment only to cases we like.

I am not edit warring. Carol did B, I did R, and now we're doing D. If someone wants to delete the evolution content while we discuss, I'm fine with that. All I want is for my arguments to be examined seriously and charitably. Steeletrap (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts whether Rockwell is qualified to speak of Rothbard's views, but if someone does, the attribution will tip them off. MilesMoney (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me what part of rs you are relying on? TFD (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard's remarks on The Bell Curve

I've removed this (1) material because it's strictly primary sourced. Primary sources are fine to use, but we need an independent (mainstream) RS discussion of Rothbard's (apparently quite positive) views on The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. I encourage people who want to re-add the section to find an RS first. Steeletrap (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Do you know whether that book had a lasting influence or was it just a topic of conversation that died out? How was it received in mainstream academic circles? SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The book is actually quite famous and has had a lasting influence in terms of academic responses, even if most have been critical. The book's central thesis is that genetic determinism plays a -- perhaps the -- seminal role in personal success. The most controversial part -- which Rothbard is particularly taken with -- is TBC's application of that genetic determinism to race. They basically said blacks are dumber than whites because of biology.

So yes, it is certainly of note that Rothbard endorsed The Bell Curve. But we need an independent RS discussing this; primary sources alone don't cut it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that MR didn't see fit to publish his views in any mainstream sources, even as others were doing so. Is there no recognized academic or mainstream press which published Rothbard's views or discussion? Let's try to find something. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

While you're welcome to look, we have sources confirming that Rothbard refused to publish in the academic or mainstream press. I can also confirm that The Bell Curve is a big deal. It was very poorly received and very loudly attacked.

What's funny is that its basic premise is true; genetics do play a key role in individual success. Even when you factor out the environment, some people are just better at some things and this is heritable. Where it goes terribly, terribly wrong is in trying to lump individuals into "races", where the latter are defined on a social basis, not a biological one. It's the worst sort of collectivism. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Murray doesn't show any interest in the book whatsoever except as it relates to "race." As to RS for his endorsement of the racist thesis of the Bell Curve (yes, saying blacks are dumber than whites because they're black is racist, even if wrapped in the veneer of "scholarship"), I am having difficulty finding anything. I am glad both of you fellow "biased" editors seem agree with my removal of the material (which has been here for years), based on its being primary-sourced. Steeletrap (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear; this sort of thing needs more than just a primary source. Of course, with a reliable secondary source, the primary one is brought back into the picture. MilesMoney (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Per RS Joey Rothbard, the two vMI and publishing colleagues Murray and Llewellyn compared notes in a morning phone call every day for years. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Historian Michael O'Malley (GMU faculty, interestingly enough) notes in 'Face Value: The Entwined Histories of Money and Race in America' (U Chicago Press, 2012) that "Rothbard's version of libertarianism favored genetic accounts of racial difference and social rank. ... Rothbard praised the book [The Bell Curve] for telling [long Rothbard quote] ... In this line of libertarian thinking, the very existence of racial inequality is itself the sign of freedom." (pg. 207). [6] The next page or so further explores the LvMI and Rothbard's relations with racialist libertarianism. Since this is a work by a professional academic published by a major university press I think it satisfies RS criteria, and we can probably now include Steeltrap's omitted material. The book's preceding pages, especially 206, contain relevant information about Rothbard's views on civil rights that also might warrant including in the article. For example, according to O'Malley, "Rothbard found the idea of freedom for Negroes alarming: they did not understand it properly," and observers that Rothbard's approach to the civil rights movement was "contemptuous and hostile," among other things. --John (the revisionism debate guy)

Thank you John! This will work perfectly, and will provide material for the Mises Institute page as well. I hope you decide to register because you clearly have a lot to offer this community. Steeletrap (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@John (the revisionism debate guy) I second Steeletrap in her invitation. Please considering registering with a username and join the editors here in improving this and other articles which may interest you. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and TFD for all your feedback. Done. AttackTheRivers (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Activist Women

Steeletrap, did you remove the text which documents MR's remarks referring to Jewish and lesbian activist women? I thought that was well-sourced and captured the tone of his remarks. I do see a mention now of "spinsters" but I hardly think that lesbians are spinsters, and I don't recall seeing that MR used that word. Sorry, I have not followed all the recent edits on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've added the SPLC source which discusses this to the 'civil rights' section. Steeletrap (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think an SPLC article about the LvMI is a good source for the LvMI but question whether it is useful for an article about individuals mentioned, since there is no way to establish the weight the information deserves. TFD (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would typically strongly agree, but here it is used to complement an excellent secondary source whose cited pages are explicitly about Rothbard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

IOW to add material about Rothbard that O'Malley ignores in the section about Rothbard in his book.[7] TFD (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They're clearly referring to the same writing/viewpoints of Rothbard, and just quoting different excerpts, so SPLC is not undue in this context. Steeletrap (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is weight. If we are writing about Churchill we should reflect his career and views according to the weight experts assign to them. However if one believes that the most important thing about him was his essay on the Jews - and there are substantial sources for this - it is possible to turn half the article into that aspect. But it violates weight.

The way to avoid POV is to use reliable sources directly about the subject. TFD (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, one of the most reliable RS we have, a 2012 book published by UChicago press from a George Mason Uniersity Associate Professor of History, makes the decision to emphasize these views about women in the several pages he writes abut Rothbard. This is the same passage the SPLC is talking about. It may be undue in your opinion but it isn't in the opinion of reliable sources. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are adding stuff beyond what the author of the UChicago Press book considered important to Rothbard. If you think that the author failed to explain Rothbard completely then you should write to him. TFD (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at what was added and it seemed to be consistent with and supported by the cited sources. What, in specific, do you object to? MilesMoney (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding WP:ASSERT-language to text which states an opinion

Perhaps I posted the wrong policy when making this edit [8]. My edit summary said WP:CLAIM, but I should have cited WP:ASSERT and/or WP:YESPOV. I was adding "which, according to Chip Berlet, he viewed with disgust." (Italics represent added text.) This edit was reverted. Well, in accordance with WP policy, because the assertion by Berlet is opinion, the "according to" is needed. Comments are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's all just alphabet soup if you can't state any legitimate concerns, the mumbo jumbo doesn't do it for you. And, frankly, if you can state a clear concern you probably don't need to trot out the links all the time. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, in general, I don't think Rich's use of alphabet soup links helps any, because it's rarely clear what, if anything, the cited rules have to do with the matter at hand. Often, the acronym seems to simply replace the word, but has only a coincidental relationship. For example, if I tell you that it will WP:SNOW tomorrow, that has nothing to do with the "snowball clause" essay; it's coincidental. It might seem relevant, but only to someone who's too lazy to check, and that's certainly not something that applies to either of us.

However, the real problem is that Rich doesn't seem to know what an opinion is. The fact that Rothbard viewed child labor laws with disgust is not an opinion. We may choose to attribute this fact as coming from Berlet if we think it's best, but we have no particular reason to do so if Berlet is a reliable source. On the other hand, Rothbard's views on child labor laws themselves constitute an opinion, so we can't just state that these laws are disgusting, only that Rothbard considered them to be.

Neither of these points are particularly complicated, but I feel that I have no choice but to raise them, as they are common issues that Rich's comments face. MilesMoney (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust." This characterization of Rothbard's view is pretty clearly opinion and I'm not sure what this adds to the article. We should just say he was opposed to child labor laws, or quote the original Rothbard essay. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Evident disgust is not an opinion, it's an observation. The key is that it's evident, not merely inferred. The observations of a reliable source may be stated as unattributed fact. We may also choose to attribute it, but not because it's an opinion.

Being opposed to child labor laws is not the same thing as seeing the efforts of "Jewish women" and "top Jewish financiers" to "agitate" as disgusting. Let's stick to what our sources actually say, instead of watering it down. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that we can't divine Rothbard's mental state (unless you are in fact Rothbard, Gamaliel, and know how he truly felt). But that applies to a bazillion things. It's wrongheaded to say that RS can't reasonably ascribe "disgust" (or other subjective mental feelings, such as enthusiasm) to people through observation or reading their written words. Steeletrap (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And that reasonable conclusion is still an opinion, and as such should be attributed to its author. Gamaliel (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained that an observation is not an opinion. If you wish to explain your disagreement, that would be good. Simply expressing it, however, is not helpful. You need to speak in terms of reasoned arguments, not bare conclusions. MilesMoney (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Berlet's writing for the SPLC should be treated in the same way as Skousen's book published by M. E. Sharpe. Steeltrap correctly wrote, "Although it is a former colleague/fellow traveler, it's also an RS, so we can use it. I tried to parse the praise of Rothbard." TFD (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, it seems to me that this is a straightforward characterization of specific statements of Rothbard. Would you also apply your theory of attribution to this article's much more general and ill-defined statements which rely on references which, without a stated rationale or definition, refer to MR as an "economist"? Berlet is a noted journalist in this area and his representation of Rothbard's disgust seems appropriately neutral and objective to me. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why there are long discussion of things that are clear from policy. Wikipedia:RS#Biased_or_opinionated_sources reads: While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."

Also, the sources should not be run together like that. It should be clear who said what. This seems like something else we discussed last summer and now it's back. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Berlet is one of the leading experts on right-wing politics in the U.S. However as I have continually said, it is not an issue of rs but of weight. rs determines whether or not a source is reliable, not whether it should be used. If you identify rs about Rothbard and use them for the article then you can avoid all these disputes. The article will not be as negative as you like or as positive as his supporters want, but it will be defendable. TFD (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD after working with you on these pages I have a very substantial respect for your intelligence and level-headedness. That's why I am surprised that you can't even understand where we're coming from on this. Berlet's remarks complement (and indeed, discuss the same passage) as the RS from the GMU historian. Without that RS, it would be undue, but with it, it isn't (just like adding an obscure primary source isn't undue under circumstances where it complements a secondary source that covers the same material). Please explain to me why that analysis doesn't make sense. Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This started off with the observation that ASSERT is needed when we state the opinion of the respected investigative reporter/expert Chip Berlet. But what are we trying to say now? That Rothbard did not like child labor laws? (If so, his own words would suffice.) Or is that Rothbard was disgusted by the fact that Jewish women were agitating for child labor laws? (If that is the point, then how is his disgust pertinent to the article.) There is no controversy about Berlet as RS, as long as we consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. – S. Rich (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, @Srich32977: actually it started with alphabet soup, but that didn't wash so you tried another policy. The problem is that linking is free. If editors here were charged $2 for every policy link, we'd get a lot more accomplished around here. The Berlet supports the GMU source and in the context of the article it's consistent with the portrayal of MR as mid-century controversialist and polemicist par excellence. Rothbard is typical of the controversialist misogynist Jewish intellectual polemicists of mid-20th Century New York City -- Norman Mailer, Paul Goodman... a few dozen of them. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If the article is to have a section or paragraph about MR as a "controversialist misogynist Jewish intellectual polemicist of mid-20th Century New York City", maybe Berlet can be used as one of the experts. I don't disagree that he is RS on many subjects. Let's see how the section develops. (I'm sorry my use of WP:CUTS was confusing to you.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd invest the effort to understand applicable policies, you will not be forced to bob and weave on the talk pages trying to explain yourself out of so many corners and dead ends. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try again. Question: Is Berlet's comment about "evident disgust" or "disgust" an opinion? If so, doesn't ASSERT apply? If he is not stating an opinion, is there consensus to that effect? – S. Rich (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't "try again". Just accept what's already been stated. You are being tendentious. MilesMoney (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternative wording Assert

I wish people would just come up with alternative wording - or the diff to removed wording? (FYI -- But two things which are problematic, but not up for debate here are: a)Structuring "Race, gender and civil rights" as an argument; this is not encyclopedic. First you explain what he said in chrono order then you have criticism. Either you integrate criticism in article or you have a criticism section. You don't do both. See [Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_ref-1]] and its linked WP:Criticism essay.)

• And again don't mix up your Berlet criticism with your Michael O'Malley professorial criticism, as if they were equal. Probably the most policy violating of the three issues above. User:Carolmooredc talk 01:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Associate the diffs with policy links and problems in each instance. That's how to resolve this quickly and clearly. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote/reformatted slightly to keep it focused. User:Carolmooredc talk 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User Carolmooredc, you know full well you should not modify your text after another editor has replied. I now have no idea what you're trying to say. If you care to reply to my request for clarification, I will consider whatever you present. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Modifications with notes are appropriate. But since you objected, I just struck overly broad section. Rereading, obviously SRich did not make his comments clear and I'm trying to figure out what their issue is, which seems to be different than mine. I'll just fix my main issue for now and the rest will be dealt with...later... User:Carolmooredc talk 05:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletionism run riot

I put back the non-interventionism section since that was one of his biggest issues. If something needs more sourcing, fine, tag it, discuss on talk. There are lots of sources. But don't blindly remove it. Also, there is a synthesis tag there that I asked to be explained last summer. I got no response at the time. Did I miss a response later on? User:Carolmooredc talk 18:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The section is a disaster and I urge you to undo your reversion. The mention of anti-Zionism is synthesis/OR; this is not necessarily connected to non-interventionism. With the exception of the Gordon material, the rest of the stuff is either non-RS (anti-war.com?) or primary sourced. The Barnes section is synthesis because opposition to World War II doesn't logically equate to non-interventionism. (One can be generally pro-war/hawkish and think WWII was unjust, odd as that view may be.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a section on his anti-war views, I would make it a sub-section of "ethics" or part of the political activism bit. These views, as opposed to his views on criminal justice, children's rights, or anarchy-capitalism, don't appear to have been rigorously formulated or much discussed by RS. Steeletrap (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I’ve started doing more research, in between pushing a deadline. However, your rationale for deleting material was problematic, especially considering past defense of personal blog rants. In order of current refs

• David Gordon: well known authority on rothbard who’s already used
• Joseph R. Stromberg (AfD coming momentarily?) Is an authority on the relevant topics; his writing on a dead person on antiwar.com, a site which at least has editors, unlike personal blog rants, is worth my taking to WP:RSN if you have a problem with it
• Ref to two essays of Rothbard mentioned by Stromberg; have already found independent ref on one of them
• Rothbard’s Harry Elmer Barnes article is used elsewhere without supporting secondary refs.
• Lora and Longton, book good ref on his general views on Israel, allowing at quote from War Guilt in the Middle east”. It’s not like a primary source from Rothbard is setting up a paragraph, like the first paragraph of the shoddy section “Science, evolution and scientism”.

So that’s my analysis of why I talk about “Deletionism Run Riot” - with only a couple reference to really poor referencing elsewhere. But I’ve found a few secondary sources of interest will put in soon. ~~

User:Carolmooredc, Again, for the 4th time in a matter of weeks (with the last example being two days ago on the talk page of paleolibertarianism), you've falsely attributed edits to me. While I did delete the primary-sourced and non-RS material (Stromberg's page doesn't even indicate whether he has ever taught at a college, much less contributes to mainstream academic/foreign policy RS), I never deleted the Gordon material, as you falsely imply. Please understand the difference between "deleting" a reference and moving it from one section of an article to another. Please review the diffs and strike the top ref. (EDIT: Nor did I delete the Lora material; I just moved it to a different section.) Steeletrap (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First I'm beefing up Journalist Stromberg's article as we speak. Second, please do not reinterpret or misrepresent statements - saying deleted from relevant section does not automatically mean deleted from the article. As for other alleged 3, I'm sure the explanations are equally accurate. CM-DC talk 16:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)