Talk:Murray Rothbard

NPOV

It's been almost ten years since this article's last Good Article reassessment. Ironically Rothbard has been in the news more since then. I would argue that he's probably more important as an influence on the alt-right than anything else. This article soft-pedals that. Prezbo (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Prezbo, you added the NPOV template to the article in October. Do you believe that the article still violates NPOV? Should it receive a specific template such as "third party"? Llll5032 (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know, I’m trying to avoid Wikipedia so I’ll leave it up to you. Prezbo (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:William M Connoly: this sentence certainly shouldn't be controversial: "Later in his career Rothbard advocated a libertarian alliance with Paleoconservatism and praised David Duke." The second sentence I added, more open to judgment.

Since there was some back-and-forth editing about the sources you added: The two journal articles definitely seem relevant and are the type of sources we should be preferring over blog posts and the like. I've formatted those into proper citations. I also formatted the citation for the Washington Post opinion piece, but overall it seems redundant, and generally that type of source is not preferred for questions of fact. The blog post is also not a great source, even if the author is a historian. Self-published sources are generally not to be used, and while there is an exception for material from "an established subject-matter expert", it seems completely unnecessary to attempt to invoke that for a piece that offers only marginal support of the claims it is being cited for. The Daily Beast piece literally mentions Rothbard once, in a quote from someone else, so I don't know why it was cited at all. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Praising David Duke

Rothbard on Duke: “ It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that? “ I think “praising David Duke” is a fair way to describe what Rothbard was doing in that article. Prezbo (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Do third-party RS use the word "praising"? Llll5032 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Duke is best known for racist KKK. A common meaning of "Praising David Duke" without being more specific would indicate endorsement of that which would be very misleading. Rothbard was commenting on beliefs other than that.North8000 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

And a short vague statement that gives the impression that he generally praised Duke (while leaving out the all-important specifics) would need ultra strong sourcing in a biography. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a book published by Routledge which says that he “embraced” Duke. Prezbo (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

George Hawley's well reviewed 2017 book Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism has a long summary of Rothbard and his views from pages 159-167 that includes, "While in the 1960s and 1970s Rothbard had praised black militants, in the 1990s Rothbard was defending David Duke and echoing much of his rhetoric." The book could be a good source for a number of sections in this article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding. That wording is fine with me. Prezbo (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think Rothbard would have had much problem with KKK era Duke either. But you can say that he praises David Duke “during his 1990s campaign for governor” if you want. I don’t see why it matters that this is a biography. It’s ok to describe dead people accurately.

This was discussed before. Whether or not Rothbard "praised" Duke in his article is a matter of opinion, not fact. The relevant article where Rothbard is said to have praised Duke is "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement" (The Rothbard-Rockwell Report January 1992, pp.5-13).

The article followed the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, when Duke received just under 39% of the vote in the Nov. 16, 1991 run-off, getting 55% of the white vote. Basically Rothbard says what George Hawley does in Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism, that by repackaging unpopular or esoteric views as populism, fringe politicians can become serious contenders. (pp. 53-56)[1]

Other than that, AFAIK Rothbard never mentioned Duke.

TFD (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re responding to an out of place reply, so I apologize for that. But 1) the current wording in the article is different anyway and 2) it’s well sourced.Prezbo (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Merging "Political activism" section into "Life and work" section

I WP:BOLDly merged the "Political activism" section at the end of the article into the "Life and work" section, following the structure of most other WP articles about politically active figures, because using a single chronology offers a clearer, more balanced view of the subject's life. Both sections were in mostly chronological order, so the merge was not especially complicated. I removed a few redundancies and edited some sub-headings, but removed no sources. If there is consensus that this merge improved the article, then I would invite other editors to make more improvements to the section. Llll5032 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

I reverted a series of edits that had removed secondary reliable sources and had added some WP:OR and primary-sourced WP:LONGQUOTEs. The Neutral Point of View policy (specifically WP:BESTSOURCES) and the No Original Research policy (specifically WP:PSTS) say that the encyclopedia follows the emphasis of the best available independent secondary sources instead of Wikipedia editors choosing from primary sources or statements of the subjects themselves. Llll5032 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)