Talk:Jesús Huerta de Soto: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:33, 13 June 2013 editSPECIFICO (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:25, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,552 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]
(275 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~skiptoTOC~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{~~WikiProjectBannerShell~~\|blp=yes\|collapsed=yes\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|collapsed=yes\|class=Start\|listas=Huerta De Soto, Jesus\|1=
	{{WikiProject Biography		{{WikiProject Biography\|s&a-work-group=yes\|s&a-priority=low}}
			{{WikiProject Spain\|importance=low}}
	\|living=yes
			{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=low}}
	\|class=start
	\|s&a-work-group=yes
	\|listas=Huerta De Soto, Jesus
	\|s&a-priority=low
	}}		}}
			{{Old AfD multi\|page=Jesús Huerta de Soto\|date=20 May 2013\|result='''keep'''}}
	{{WikiProject Spain\|class=start\|importance=low}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{{WikiProject Economics\|class=start\|importance=low}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	}}
			\|counter = 1

			\|minthreadsleft = 6
	==Review of book==
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2

			\|algo = old(60d)
	''(Moved from article to talk page by ] 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC))''
			\|archive = Talk:Jesús Huerta de Soto/Archive %(counter)d

			}}
	===Meaning, substance, and implications===

	De Soto effectively critiques Monetarist and Keynesian theories as different aspects of the same sophism in Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles beginning on page 509. Subjectivist Revolution writers such as Bohm Bawerk are cited with page number specificity and I spent more time, so far, reading the works cited - than his works. De Soto's work appears to be worthy and sound: worth many weeks of perusal. I seem to have passed over much the material he cites in silence and with a lack of understanding. He brought it to life and gave it meaning not found originally by me. Thanks to De Soto, that error is being corrected.

	My ignorance admitted and being corrected, it was a pleasure to become the owner of such a fine work. Here here! Nice reading.

	===Meaning, substance, and implications===

	Granted Huerta has a great book, but not much is known of him to warrant an entry here at the moment unless someone is willing to provide a list of some of his papers plus some of the unique ideologies he stands for.

	For example his book, ''Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles'' advocates for free markets over central banks or other government controlled monetary institutions. His advocacy for free imigration and the ethics of capitalism also need to be mentioned.

	== ISBNs ==

	I have added the first ISBN to enable easy location of vendors for his book(s). (Click on the ISBN if you have not tried this before.)

	At the moment, Amazon has the ISBN wrong in their database for the English translation of ''Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles'', but I have notified them of their error. With a little luck, they will have fixed it by the time anyone attempts the link. -- ] 16:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Disambiguation ==

			==Integrating material; shorter Sechrest==
	FYI, I have just added Seńor de Soto's name to the ] disambiguation page. -- ] 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
			There really was no need for a reception or praise section since one sentence fit nicely into an existing section and the other, below can be added to any details about that book. I removed one WP:OR statement about "colleagues" since you'd need a ref for that. Also, one mention that a former congress person involved with Mises since it seems trivial in comparison. Or we can add that back and mention that Mises published the version of the Sechret book that review Huerta de Soto.

			It seems silly to mention these loose connections over and over again like a mantra. Your general reader probably will read it as meaning "Geeze, these Mises people must be ''really'' important to be mentioned so often and this guy must be really important too." So there must be some sort of consistent rule about what needs mentioning when. Will think about it later.
	== Non-English de Soto books ==

			'''Removed:'''<br>
	I'm hoping this link will work to show de Soto has a listing of 41 items in ]. 17 Spanish, 9 English, 4 Polish, 3 German, 2 French, 2 Italian, 1 Dutch, 1 Russian. While many of these are overlapping items, the list serves to show he has an international audience. {{OCLC\|800522200}} gives us a journal, but I couldnt say what sort of item this is. I think it is the title of the series that he produced. I do have 2 magazine hits: I'll post them in the article. – ] (]) 00:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
			::In a book published by the Mises Institute, its Associated Scholar Leland Yeager called the 1992 edition of Huerta de Soto's ''Socialism, Economic Calculation, and Entrepreneurship'' "an excellent and insightful book"
	:A list shows nothing if we don't know the descriptions of the items. ] ] 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
			::From {{cite book\|author=Leland B. Yeager\|title=Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty?: Essays in Political Economy\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-z7Q4rsgdhAC&pg=PT13\|accessdate=15 June 2013\|year=2011\|publisher=Ludwig von Mises Institute\|isbn=978-1-61016-421-4\|pages=13–}}
	::The article is already got a listing of works, and I do not propose to include all 41 items. (Also, some of the WorldCat listings overlap.) But I posted the link as a source for others to work off of. And it tends to show that deSoto has a mainly Spanish audience. – ] (]) 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

			Sechrest was way too long. I think that in the past I had a more NPOV version that balances description with criticism but would have to look for it. In the meantime just cut it down to more manageable size; if someone wants to do a better balanced version, go for it. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 01:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	==Soto's website==
	:Just found his bibliography Barely looked but think I found a couple peer reviewed works there. Of course, I should have just studied <s></s>; will look there for more goodies tomorrow. Will look more tomorrow unless you beat me too it and put up most prestigious works. In fact there's lots of stuff there, though obviously can't use anything too self-promotional. Of ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big>

			Must Sechrest be quoted at length? It is the largest paragraph in the article and his criticisms can be summed up in a few sentences. (] (]) 16:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC))
	:: Carol, what you cite is not a bibliography of de Soto's works but rather a bibliography of works he cites in one of his books. If John Q libertarian cite a Milton Friedman essay in his freshman ECO 101 paper, that does not mean he wrote the Friedman essay. (Some de Soto works are indeed cited there, but the ones I've looked at so far are published by the "usual suspects".) ] (]) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

			: ], these connections are not "loose" at all. We are talking about co-workers, many of whom publish (and mingle) with each other regularly. ] (]) 01:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::Pardon me, it was a listing that included some of his works. That translation page is tricky for some reason, and you have to stick http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm into google translate and keep playing with it to get to the many relevant pages. Yeah - I see now he has frames. So you have to go to each page (including under CV) and just copy and paste the Spanish text to translate that page into English. But it's all there and I doubt he'd lie about any of it :-) ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
			:: WP:OR language and consistency of identification are the issues. a) no WP:OR language like co-workers or colleagues or friends or allies unless a source says it; so "also a fellow" or "on the faculty of" or "also published by" are acceptable; b) consistency in application: are only fellows and faculty members mentioned as being associated and are all of them mentioned as having that association, or are only some mentioned? Is being published by Mises.org an association? Selgin and Sechrest have been published by and spoken for LVMI. For all we know those guys may be (or have been) closer friends/etc. with Huerta de Soto than the other fellows/faculty/published writers. So should those associations be mentioned? Some one has done a few lectures on the "faculty" may not be as relevant as someone who has had one or more books published by them and thus is quite closely tied. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 02:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
			::: Carol, I think your understanding of WP policy is "loose." "WP:OR" does not apply to talk page edits. I have not used the term "co-worker" or "friend" in the article. ] (]) 03:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
			:::::Obviously this is an issue over a number of articles where here and there these or similar words where entered into article text, whether or not they currently remain. This is the first time I've thought carefully about the issue, but it is clear that a consistent policy would be helpful. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 05:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

			==Removal of factual info==
	::::Also, FYI: ] reads: ''Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.''
			Steeletrap, like SPECIFICO, removes information about the BLPs activities as and economist and writer which is noncontroversial and of general interest. This sort of editing unintentionally disrupts the project. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
	::::Curriculum Vitae, article lists, etc can be useful to lead to secondary sources or can be used when there aren't others, as long as reasonable number used. If there's a stalled debate third parties can always be asked to comment. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
			:Per my original edit summary, the content was ]. It repeated non-noteworthy information which is already in JHdSB's cv linked on the page. Why do you think this information is of such importance or "general interest" that it should be in the article? Please cite policy. Thanks. ]] 18:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
			::Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV we don't remove material just because ] and we want to AfD the article permanently. For fun see ]. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
			:::I told you the content was UNDUE. Your reply was not responsive and because it disparaged me by claiming it was IDONTLIKEIT, your reply was a personal attack. Please strike it. ]] 18:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
			::The fact that the board memberships are mentioned in Huerta's CV does not mean that they need not be mentioned here. If that logic were extended we could erase from this biography everything found in the CV, including schools attended, degrees earned, etc.
			::One sentence about board memberships on two peer-reviewed scholarly journals is not undue emphasis. ] (]) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
			:::That does not address the clear ] issue. You've raised a straw man. Nobody has suggested erase "everything found in the CV" so it's not helpful for you to suggest as much. As editors we must determine the important and encyclopedic information. These two publications are not notable and being on their mastheads is not worthy of mention in the article. If you disagree, you'll need to address the stated issue -- not bring up false ones. Thanks. ]] 21:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

			== Austrian business cycle and full reserve banking section ==
	::::: User:Specifico removed sourced content from Soto's CV? Specifically, ''He was Vice President and member of the Board of Directors of the ] from 2000 to 2004.REF:, see Curriculum Vitae, Otros Meritos.'' It's usuable per WP:SPS above. Do you have some problem with his veracity? If not, please put it back. Thanks. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} No mention of Mount Pelerin at Otros page, aka "failed verification" -- maybe it was on a different page or link? If so back it goes. 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC) ] ] 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::You should have said failed verification here; missed it in the diff. Did you go to the SECOND page of Curriculum Vitae, Otros Meritos? # 10 says: Vicepresidente y miembro del “Board of Directors” de la Mont Pèlerin Society (2000-2004) elegido por unanimidad en la General Meeting de la Sociedad que tuvo lugar en Santiago de Chile, el 17 de Noviembre de 2000. (See google translate.) ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::That's a relief. Put it back with the corrected citation. Thanks. ] ] 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

			Does anyone else think that the section on Huerta de Soto´s views on Austrian business cycles and FR banking is basically dedicated exclusively to criticisms of it by Sechrest? I was thinking that an elaboration on HdS´s actual views would be in order, instead of just Sechrest´s critiques (as the latter doesn´t make much sense without knowing what HdS actually said). Furthermore, there are positive reviews of his book, e.g., by Ludwig von den Hauwe and Guido Huelsmann avilable:
	==Remove ref tag?==
	I think we can safely remove the references tag from the article, but don't want to run up against WP:3rr so just adding material now. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

			http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2399403
	== Spanish Hayek Edition. ==
			http://mises.org/daily/2076

			I´m just looking for some feedback before I edit the article.] (]) 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
	I see the citation in the article, but I cannot find any mention of Soto, "rendering" "editing" or similar assertions there. Please provide a more specific link or quote the relevant statement on the U Chicago Press website that supports the assertion in the article text. ] ] 18:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	:This has been fixed. FYI future readers. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 12:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

			:Agree. But the solution is not to add more LvMI commentaries but to look for analysis of his views in reliable third party sources. ] (]) 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
	== Lame-O award ==

			:: Agreed. What do you think of the linked van den Hauwe article above? It´s not affiliated with the MI, and to my knowledge neither is he? ] (]) 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
	Goes to this content: "In a tribute to Murray N. Rothbard, Soto described the influence the economist had on his thinking and his personal relationship with Rothbard over many years."

			== Sechrest review ==
	If that essay is significant, could an editor who is familiar with it please summarize some substantive content to replace the empty mention currently in the article. As it stands, it leaves one asking why this was mentioned, rather than any of Soto's many other essays and articles? ] ] 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

			In this edit we have referenced material being deleted (since restored). A subsequent edit summary said that de Soto did not actually write about the particular material. However, the Sechrest text is about what Sechrest wrote, not what de Soto wrote. Seeking to remove the Sechrest material because of what an editor read in de Soto's book is original research. We rely on what the secondary sources, such as Sechrest, say. – ] (]) 04:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Lame-O? That doesn't sound very civil. Anyway, it takes time to put things together. Sometimes one puts them in the order one finds them. I haven't even started looking into books.google, where I'm sure larger context will be found to support mentioning the tribute. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	::It would be much more informative for the reader to focus on Soto's substantive contributions to Economics. How many tens of thousands of tributes to Ronald Reagan have been filed and forgotten? We don't mention in the lede of everyone who's written homage to Reagan, Hayek, Mises, or even J. Edgar Hoover and Robert Moses. The fact that Soto crossed paths with Murray or that Soto had Murray on his mind is not the most important part of Jesus' contribution as an economist. Soto has written on various topics of economics, some of which differentiate him from other writers. These would be the important points to cover in an article, IMO. ] ] 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::Feel free to add that content to help save the article from deletion. The more the merrier. But first we have to source what is already there and is important. Articles are not built in a day, especially by unpaid volunteers. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::The problem with this article is that none of the current content demonstrates his notability. It's not that it's poorly sourced, it's that it is all Googled trivia and drivel. ] ] 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::To repeat a version of the above...I haven't even begun to look in books.google where the hardcore stuff is. First we have to ref existing material. That's the way editors who like to add constructive content roll... {{=)}} ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

			:Exactly. It is not our place to question the points made in Sechrest's review. Rather, our task is to summarize the Sechrest review as accurately as possible, with proper weight given to it. Removing the review entirely is not the proper weight. ] (]) 05:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
	== Weird Language ==

			::IP has again removed the Sechrest material with an edit summary that says the quote is libelous. Such is not the case. Sechrest is critical of de Soto's theory and writing, and has not made any defamatory comment about de Soto. The review has been restored. – ] (]) 23:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
	There's a lot of weird language in this article, as if maybe Google Translate was used instead of figuring out the English equivalents. For example, was Soto presented with a chair as a graduation present from Grad School when he joined whatever University? Did he get what English speakers call a Law Degree one year after his MBA? Is he another Mitt Romney double threat? The article needs to be intelligible to English Speakers, maybe even to Americans as well. As it stands, I can't tell whether this guy is an actual academic or a talk-circuit pundit who lectures at the local vocational school. ] ] 01:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	:First, the chair mention is from one of the the two Mises interviews and I pretty much wrote it the way he said it since not being an academic I don't know what the phrase means, though I've heard it. In one of the interviews he also talks about how the Spanish (as in Spain) higher education system differs from American and how his university (can't remember which one) is run. I was thinking a sentence or two on that might be of interest, but didn't want to run into the off-topic police. Also, if you look at his CV/Títulos Académicos description he lays it all out. Maybe you can figure it out better than I can if you have some experience with non-American academia. Collaboration means helping solve these mysteries ;-) ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 04:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	:: It's pretty clear from the Mises Institute interview that Carol uses as her source that "chair" means a different thing in Spain than "endowed chair" means in the United States. de Soto says that "All professors ... hold their chairs for life". This sounds like some sort of title that Spanish economists get after graduate school.
	:: On a broader level, don't you (SPECIFICO) consider it mildly amazing that everyone who offered a specific argument (a couple users gave no reason whatsoever) for saying "keep" for Jesus not only had a dubious rationale but one that can actually be falsified by a few minutes Googling? (e.g., the idea that Krugman talked about Jesus as opposed to an anonymous commentator on his blog; the idea that Mont Pelerin Society is a prestigious academic group akin to the National Academy of Sciences; and the idea that Jesus holds an endowed chair in economics). ] (]) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am greatly distressed, in general, that editors would use Google tools and Google Translate text to generate encyclopedia content, as if those quickies could substitute for genuine research, familiarity with the article's subject matter, and in this case understanding of Jesus' work. The unfortunate result is that WP articles can then serve to propagate a characteristic laziness of thought and intellectually vacuous speech. There are published comments from various RS that tend to be dismissive of Jesus' efforts to portray himself as a serious academic economist, but I have not collated or fully evaluated them for use in the article. ] ] 15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	{{OD}} Maybe when one is hired for a first teaching job at a Spanish college, they give you a chair for your office. Here in the US, they can be purchased at most college bookstores, for example here . I hope some editor will further research the Spanish tradition and practice of giving chairs to junior college faculty. ] ] 16:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

			::: No, you do not get to libel someone with quotes of another. You have not read the book and you have little place editing this page. It's a long book and you clearly have no knowledge of it. Sechrest is not simply critical but makes false factual assertions. Find a better quality criticism and please refrain from bringing politics into your editing strategy. The quote is too long to begin with and in poor style. --] (]) 05:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Government owned university ==

			::::It's not libel to summarize a good-faith review. Sechrest's assertions stand as having been published. If someone wants to make a rebuttal they are welcome to publish one. ] (]) 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
	That's what Jesus calls his employer in the Mises.org source. I suggest we follow that. Srich, any objection to undoing your recent change? ] ] 17:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	:~~Looks~~ ~~like~~ he ~~was~~ ~~explaining~~ ~~that~~ the ~~important~~ Us in ~~Spain~~ ~~are~~ ~~government~~ ~~owned~~ ~~(which~~ ~~also~~ ~~explains~~ ~~his~~ ~~civil~~ ~~servant~~ ~~chair)~~, as ~~compared~~ to ~~the~~ US ~~where~~ we ~~have~~ a ~~few~~ ~~privately~~ ~~owned~~ ~~important~~ ~~Us.~~ ~~"Public~~ ~~university"~~ is ~~the~~ ~~commonly~~ ~~accepted~~ ~~term~~ ~~for~~ ~~English~~ ~~readers~~. Also, ~~"government~~ ~~owned"~~ ~~has~~ an ~~implication~~ ~~of state-''controlled''~~ to ~~it,~~ ~~which~~ I ~~don't~~ ~~think~~ he ~~was~~ ~~intending. I'd like~~ to ~~stick~~ with ~~the~~ ~~simpler,~~ ~~less~~ ~~awkward,~~ ~~yet~~ ~~completely~~ ~~accurate~~ ~~version~~ we ~~have~~ ~~now.~~ ~~Let's~~ ~~hear~~ ~~what~~ ~~other editors~~ ~~think~~. – ] (]) 18:03, 22 ~~May~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		::::Agreed. Perhaps IP can better describe what are the false factual assertions and which of them are summarized in this article. Of course, reliable sourcing for these descriptions would be necessary. But IP cannot say "I read the book and such-and-such is false because I say so." IP needs independent sourcing. Also, IP might provide a shorter quote to resolve what IP believes is a "too long to begin with" issue. If the quote is in poor style, then that is the fault of Sechrest. – ] (]) 21:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Actually, Jesus speaks fluent English so any nuance in his words must be respected as reflecting his intention. Given his further remarks in the interview, I think it's clear he meant to imply all of the shades of "government owned" in this context. Please undo your edit. ] ] 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	::: He's remarkably fluent in English and highly articulate in his Mises.org interview (much more so than most Americans), so it's clear that the use of the term "government owned" is deliberate. ] (]) 18:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::I don't have a problem with government owned in quotes. Nevertheless, (per above section) silly jokes about other country's academic from editors who allege to be academics in this country really are... silly and off topic... ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::You don't notice me voting for deletion of this article, do you? I hope it turns out this is a serious notable guy and that a great article will be written about him. If you are accusing me of being an "academic," please don't. I outgrew that long ago and went on to bigger things. I do still have my chair in the library in my offices here. ] ] 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I too am open to being proven wrong about de Soto. But the "keep" votes so have all been based on either falsified or (in your case, Carol) vague/unspecific and therefore meaningless criteria. So we aren't making much progress. ] (]) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

			::::: For instance, the word "sin" is found on page 86, 88, 90, 92, 96, 97, 611 only in the quotations of others. The two uses in the main text are describing the views of Saravia de la Calle and Molina and Lugo. De Soto is simply discussing the well-known historical debates about usury. He does not "characterize" the practice this way himself. Furthermore, you quote too much. It has nothing to do with the source. I don't have to prove a negative buddy. You need to prove a positive. Don't turn this around. --] (]) 22:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Full Reserve Banking Constitutes Fraud even in a free market. ==
			::::::IP, you are not being very specific in your comments. Please supply the "]" or quotes of concern. What exactly – in the Sechrest material – is inappropriate? Thanks. – ] (]) 03:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

			::::::: I am concerned with two parts of the analysis, but I am approaching one at a time. This part: "his characterization of fractional reserve banking as 'sin'".--] (]) 15:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	Please furnish the quote and page number from the source that supports Jesus holding that view. Thanks. ] ] 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
	:The quote was provided in the context of what Rothbard thinks. I did not notice that you had removed the Rothbard reference, so I'm not sure if you'll accept modification which includes the quote but excludes Rothbard. (Perhaps I should have posted an {{tl\|inuse}} message.) In any event, the references are magazine articles and the HighBeam Research link does not provide page numbers for the particular items. This effort to expand the section certainly needs more work. – ] (]) 02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
	::If I am correct in understanding you to say that the source is only your personal surmise, please remove the text immediately. ] ] 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::You are not correct – {{Oldsmiley\|roll}}. There are two sources supporting the single sentence that I added in an effort to expand the article a small bit more. I'm the last person you'd see adding their personal surmise. – ] (]) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::Actually, I remember reading that somewhere else, since I don't agree with that view in the private sector so I was disappointed by it. But hopefully I misunderstood and he's actually a free market money guy (like Hayek and Rothbard). Anyway, I hope to find evidence of the latter. Books.google i sthe place to look. Time will tell. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 05:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

			{{od}}Editors refuse to read the talk page and are continuing to post false and inaccurate information. The opinions and politics of the reviewer are beside the point. One must support the quote posted and not turn the burden of evidence around. ] (]) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	===Various sources for general info and his banking theories===
	Turns out that various books google searches do keep coming back to that topic, even when I search other topics and his name, and you are correct, SRich (much to my dissappointment). Considering he is an anarcho-capitalist (yes, ref'd info exists), I wonder if he actually wants the private protection agencies to shut down fractional reserve banking entities for fraud? Oh, yuck. Anyway, here's some fun ref's you all can play with, from more general to banking issue:
	* says Soto and certain other Austrians are '''“historians of economic thought”''' who recognize thinkers before Adam Smith (stick Austrian and historian econ. thought in the lead?)
	* mentions Soto and affinity between Austrians and scholastic tradition on fractional reserve.
	* (one of many listed, unless other sources found)
	* on recession, reform, etc.
	* - of Ludwig von Mises Institute
	* also mentions he’s vs Fractional reserve (Used it)
	* (Continuum International Publishing Group) mentions in footnotes: a) soto thinks fractional-reserve banking is one of the causes of boom and bust cycles; b) Also says he’s one of main economists of Austrian school with Mises and Rothbard; c) he wrote the “most complete and integrated analysis of the theories of banking of the Salamanca school” (used it)
	* is his most referenced work. At this link he mentions various theories of “denationalization of money” and free banking and criticizes them...- Page 675
	** by Prof. ] has responses from Soto to his critique; most detailed critique.
	**Walter Block general (or specific?) comments on issue: ; but I don’t feel like giving them my facebook info need to read it and see if Block mentions Soto in more detail.
	**Prof. Lawrence H. White responds to Jesus Huerta de Soto on Banking (); (); () - and probably not useable since reprinted on one or more blogs. Dang...
	Well that's my fun to share for now. If have time today, I will enter actual new info on another topic with lots of refs. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

			:I removed the "edit request" portions of your talk page entry because you did not request an edit. The article is locked because of your continual removal of very well-cited information from a prominent critic. If you don't like this critic's viewpoint then publish a rebuttal. Misplaced Pages will represent all viewpoints, including Sechrest's. ] (]) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	==Sectioning==
	I looked around and Education and Career sections tend to be more typical for many bios than the more creative ones in this article. They are more flexible, as well. I think it's interesting that Hayek recommended him for Stanford and he hung out with Rothbard there, per one of his Mises interviews, and that could be stuck in the education section. But not tonight by me.

			:: It's inaccurate information. I can't cite someone saying you are a child molester. Citation is a red herring. It's a poor quote and criticism. Get a better one. If you want a criticism, get an accurate one! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Also, I don't think economics should have sections unless some one topic his so overwhelmingly his focus that seems obvious and necessary. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 05:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
	:Seems to me he is an historian re Austrian School topics, so his thoughts in this regard might come under the economics rubric. The section is just a start. – ] (]) 05:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	==Peer reviewed articles that should be mentioned?==
	This listing was mentioned before. I cleaned out book chapters and anything published by the company he's affiliated and got down to this. Anybody know if these are significantly "prestigious" and/or peer-reviewed journals to be mentioned in the articles list? Thanks. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
	* Huerta de Soto, J., “Conjectured History and Beyond,” Humane Studies
	Review 6, no. 2 (Winter, 1998–1989): 10.
	* Huerta de Soto, J., “The Ongoing Methodenstreit of the Austrian
	School,” Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines 8, no. 1 (March
	1998): 75–113.
	* Huerta de Soto, J., “New Light on the Prehistory of the Theory of Banking
	and the School of Salamanca,” Review of Austrian Economics 9, no.
	2 (1996): 59–81.
	* Huerta de Soto, J., “A Theory of Liberal Nationalism,” Il Politico IX, no.
	4 (University of Pavia, Italy, 1995): 583–98.
	* Huerta de Soto, J., “A Critical Note on Fractional-Reserve Free Banking,”
	Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1, no. 4 (Winter, 1998):
	25–49.
	* Huerta de Soto, J., “Interés, ciclos económicos y planes de pensiones,”
	Annals of the Congreso Internacional de Fondos de Pensiones (Madrid,
	April 1984), pp. 458–68; reprint, Chapter 23 in J. Huerta de Soto,
	Estudios de economía política (Madrid: Unión Editorial, 1994), pp.
	285–94.
	----

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	== Bibliography Bloat ==

			I have just modified 10 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	The biblio section is excessive. It's approaching the length of Arnold Toynbee's. Many lines are devoted to translations or at least one to a minor note in a periodical. This should be pared to significant works in the original. I'm unfamiliar with these works, and I am not able to make the cut. ] ] 01:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025101358/http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm to http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm
	:Perhaps you are right. An article like ] might be good. For now, though, this listing does not deserve a separate article. Still, it also serves as a source for editors who might want to expand on the beefier (lean beef, that is) portions of the article. – ] (]) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025101358/http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm to http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm
	::I think the problem is listing every translation. Perhaps it could be stated as "Also published in" and name languages and if necessary ref each mention so it will just appear as a ref.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025101358/http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm to http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm
	::As you noticed above I added a bunch of articles. I figured those who state they know what are the highest quality peer review articles would be able to opine on which of the above are and those could replace lower quality ones in the article. I haven't heard since opinions yet. Perhaps I'll have to figure it out myself. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 12:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025101358/http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm to http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054422/http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/board.php to http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/board.php
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025101358/http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm to http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/madre2.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106041441/http://elperiodico.com.gt/es/20090507/opinion/99940/?tpl=54 to http://elperiodico.com.gt/es/20090507/opinion/99940/?tpl=54
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030125544/http://www.uaic.ro/uaic/bin/download/University/doctor_honoris_causa/LaudatiodeSOTOenglezafinal.pdf to http://www.uaic.ro/uaic/bin/download/University/doctor_honoris_causa/LaudatiodeSOTOenglezafinal.pdf
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029221658/http://archive.mises.org/12362/faculty-spotlight-interview-jesus-huerta-de-soto/ to http://archive.mises.org/12362/faculty-spotlight-interview-jesus-huerta-de-soto/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504132104/http://www.goldmoney.com/video/huerta-de-soto-interview.html to http://www.goldmoney.com/video/huerta-de-soto-interview.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	==de Soto's contributions==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	The AfD indicates that the community believes de Soto should stay. However, if he does stay, this article needs major cleaning up. For one, nothing here is written about de Soto's theoretical or empirical contributions to economics; since he's described as an economist rather than a political activist, I think these contributions -- rather than ideological views (about "fractional reserve banking" being "fraud" etc) that any John or Jane off the street could assert -- should be the main point of this article. ] (]) 13:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
	:My sense of Soto's "contribution" is that he's channeled Murray Rothbard for the Spanish market without having made any original contributions to economic research or theory. This would not generally be sufficient to sustain a career as an academic economist but Soto's staying power may come from other sponsorship. Aside from what could be called academic contributions, it's possible that Soto has addressed the well-publicized policy issues that relate to Spain's role in the recent economic crisis. Any such material might compensate for a lack of original work in the field. ] ] 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
	::What you mean is additional information,not clean up. Have you looked at ] for starters? Actually the most discussion I've found just typing his name into books.google, etc is his views on fractional reserve banking. And there are discussions of his work on fractional reserving banking linked above. He is in a middle of a debate among Austrians as to when it constitutes fraud.
	::Today I did see a mention that he has views in other areas, but they were not detailed. It's all about the research. Yes, it needs work to include these views, but someone has to do it. Are you willing? Otherwise have patience with volunteers. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
	::: I did my undergraduate degree in economics and statistics and my master's degree is also in a social science. I know about this stuff. Being a "social scientist" is not just about getting a PhD so you can get a job and so your political opinions on economic matters carry more weight with laypersons. It's about doing the hard work of empirical research and statistical modeling that constitute the social sciences. All this article does is detail Jesus' educational background, his employment history, his translating of Austrian School texts, his friendship with libertarians and affiliations with libertarian groups, his opinions about political matters (which could be stated by a person with no training in economics), his discussion of economic history (i.e. his interpretation of the views of the Renaissance ]) and a bloated bibliographic section which does not specify what these books/articles are about and how they relate to economics. Nothing in Jesus' article relates to the work he has done as an economist. ] (]) 15:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::First, anonymous people claiming outside expertise is not only not very credible but gives the impression some editors are more equal than others. Such arguments really are uncalled for.
	::::Second, see comment about we're all volunteers and you can always add such material yourself. Patience. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 01:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
	==Proper way to mention name==
	I've always seen full uses of his name as Jesús Huerta de Soto. Partial uses I've seen as Huerta de Soto and de Soto.
	Anyone want to investigate "Reliable sources" (not our personal opinions) about that? Thanks. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 16:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
	:The article {{tl\|DEFAULTSORT}} is Huerta De Soto. Guidance on usage of Spanish surnames is not too clear. I think either usage is fine. – ] (]) 16:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
	::Sounds like someone who knows better than us did that. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 16:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	== Opposing economic views -- from Krugman and/or others ?==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	Best to omit competing views that do not address specific remarks by de Soto. Perhaps can add "See also" section or "Further" hatnote. – ] (]) 03:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Sorry I didn't clarify that in my removal. If the argument specifically mentions Huerta de Soto, fine. I listed a couple above that do, as does an existing ref, though the latter only in passing. Just haven't had time to look for more. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I see User:SPECIFICO is edit warring again by adding material that does not mention Huerta de Soto, against policy. So it's three refs instead of one, still irrelevant. Geez, do I have to keep taking him to noticeboards )WP:BLPN this time) to get Admins to explain policy to him? (And quote his POV so they won't think he's just a confused newbie.)
	::On another note, finally getting around to writing a bit on Huerta de Soto's economic views and found he's had quite a bit to say about Milton Friedman we can mention. Maybe I'll find something he has to say about Krugman too. So hopefully we will have a larger and ''relevant'' section soon. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} While it may seem tempting to add countering views on economic theories or subjects based on ], I don't think this is the proper guideline. We have some of his views set forth so that the reader can get an idea of what de Soto thinks. If there are countering sources that specifically address ''his'' views, then adding them would have more pertinence. But adding views that do not address what de Soto said specifically, does not help the reader. Would we add the theories about stagflation and the Depression from all ] just to show that de Soto was wrong? No. Those are debates for the specific theory subject articles. Compare: he may prefer red-wine because his family operates a winery and he extolls the health virtues of red wine, etc. We would not include material that says white wine (or beer or Johnny Walker Black) is superior. (Please note that I have retitled the section re-titled as it is not specific to Krugman.) – ] (]) 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)00:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:Just I've got five pages of notes! See, one can find sources that mention de Soto's views, and not rely on those who do. Just use books google. (Haven't even looked at Scholar google....) So if I don't put something in tonight, you know why. Guess I'll go with what I got for now. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 01:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914000416/https://mises.org/page/1477 to https://mises.org/page/1477

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	===Synthesis tag===
	] (]) 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)]

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	Per ] it would be helpful if you would explain which text in the sentence "Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association" constitutes Original Research. It's all stated in the cited references. ] ] 01:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	:I've expanded the discussion topic on the talk page and commented. Adding the two ideas -- Friedman's and de Soto's views -- is ]. de Soto is reported to have said "only the Austrians predicted stagflation/GD." (The "A".) You want to add "Friedman predicted stagflation/GD." (The "B".) The new position ("C") -- that de Soto was wrong about being the only ones correct about stagflation/GD is: ''"A and B, therefore C" acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.'' So, not only do we have an unacceptable "C", it is off-topic because the topic of the article is the biography of de Soto, and not the various economic theories (or history of economic theories) that he has written about. It '''does not matter''' if there is RS for A or B. The C is the unacceptable part. (And the B is off-topic because it is not about de Soto.) – ] (]) 01:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Did you intend the tag to be "OR" or something else? Anyway, I didn't state what you're calling the synth C. Just giving context on a matter of history and theory from mainstream source. The statement "only Austrians predicted X" is also not about Soto. I am not seeing any OR here? ] ] 01:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::1. Which tag do you think is pertinent? 2. The "C" is ], e.g., that de Soto was wrong. So it is unacceptable. 3. The ''italicized'' statement above is policy. 4. Milton, in 1967, clearly was not addressing what de Soto was going to say 44 years in the future. 5. So, if you want to say de Soto was wrong because he does not reference what Milton had said 44 years earlier, you must find RS (''not'' your own interpretation) to support that position. – ] (]) 02:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}I asked you to identify the OR. Please do so or remove the tag. Another editor tagged "failed verification" which is false, but irrelevant to the current issue. Thanks. ] ] 03:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	:WP:OR Best and I should have used myself. It reads: ''To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. '' And WP:BLP refers to WP:OR frequently. Frankly, I only skimmed enough to see it wasn't about JHDS, so can't say if it's synthesis; I just looked at ref links and saw no mention of JHDS. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 03:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	::{{ec}} So I've now tagged the material as {{tl\|syn}}. – ] (]) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::There's no SYNTH there. Poor Soto -- he's being protected from fresh air like a sickly old asthmatic. Soto is strong! He stands tall! He is and able to live and breathe in a sentence next to the immortal Milton Friedman. Here's to both of them. ] ] 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::''Why'' is Milton cited? – ] (]) 03:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Look at here: ]. "The myth that the earth was flat..." Now, should we say "Soto gave voice to the myth that the Austrians were the only ones to predict the staglation..." Decisions, decisions! ] ] 03:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
	==Removing reference to U of Chicago press??==
	I can't see any Misplaced Pages reason to remove that perfectly normal reference to his notability and credibility, especially since at least one of the books was co-edited with the then editor of the series; perhaps another with the current editor. I'd have to check. I'm sure there aren't many economics profs or ph.d.s who enjoy such a distinction. Why in the world would we want to omit that factoid from a bio. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 23:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:25, 10 July 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesús Huerta de Soto article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Integrating material; shorter Sechrest

There really was no need for a reception or praise section since one sentence fit nicely into an existing section and the other, below can be added to any details about that book. I removed one WP:OR statement about "colleagues" since you'd need a ref for that. Also, one mention that a former congress person involved with Mises since it seems trivial in comparison. Or we can add that back and mention that Mises published the version of the Sechret book that review Huerta de Soto.

It seems silly to mention these loose connections over and over again like a mantra. Your general reader probably will read it as meaning "Geeze, these Mises people must be really important to be mentioned so often and this guy must be really important too." So there must be some sort of consistent rule about what needs mentioning when. Will think about it later.

Removed:

In a book published by the Mises Institute, its Associated Scholar Leland Yeager called the 1992 edition of Huerta de Soto's Socialism, Economic Calculation, and Entrepreneurship "an excellent and insightful book"

From Leland B. Yeager (2011). Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty?: Essays in Political Economy. Ludwig von Mises Institute. pp. 13–. ISBN 978-1-61016-421-4. Retrieved 15 June 2013.

Sechrest was way too long. I think that in the past I had a more NPOV version that balances description with criticism but would have to look for it. In the meantime just cut it down to more manageable size; if someone wants to do a better balanced version, go for it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Must Sechrest be quoted at length? It is the largest paragraph in the article and his criticisms can be summed up in a few sentences. (Caleb983 (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC))

User:Carolmooredc, these connections are not "loose" at all. We are talking about co-workers, many of whom publish (and mingle) with each other regularly. Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR language and consistency of identification are the issues. a) no WP:OR language like co-workers or colleagues or friends or allies unless a source says it; so "also a fellow" or "on the faculty of" or "also published by" are acceptable; b) consistency in application: are only fellows and faculty members mentioned as being associated and are all of them mentioned as having that association, or are only some mentioned? Is being published by Mises.org an association? Selgin and Sechrest have been published by and spoken for LVMI. For all we know those guys may be (or have been) closer friends/etc. with Huerta de Soto than the other fellows/faculty/published writers. So should those associations be mentioned? Some one has done a few lectures on the "faculty" may not be as relevant as someone who has had one or more books published by them and thus is quite closely tied. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I think your understanding of WP policy is "loose." "WP:OR" does not apply to talk page edits. I have not used the term "co-worker" or "friend" in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously this is an issue over a number of articles where here and there these or similar words where entered into article text, whether or not they currently remain. This is the first time I've thought carefully about the issue, but it is clear that a consistent policy would be helpful. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of factual info

At this diff Steeletrap, like SPECIFICO, removes information about the BLPs activities as and economist and writer which is noncontroversial and of general interest. This sort of editing unintentionally disrupts the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Per my original edit summary, the content was WP:UNDUE. It repeated non-noteworthy information which is already in JHdSB's cv linked on the page. Why do you think this information is of such importance or "general interest" that it should be in the article? Please cite policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV we don't remove material just because we don't like it (for any of hundreds of reasons and we want to AfD the article permanently. For fun see Misplaced Pages:Extreme article deletion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I told you the content was UNDUE. Your reply was not responsive and because it disparaged me by claiming it was IDONTLIKEIT, your reply was a personal attack. Please strike it. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the board memberships are mentioned in Huerta's CV does not mean that they need not be mentioned here. If that logic were extended we could erase from this biography everything found in the CV, including schools attended, degrees earned, etc.

One sentence about board memberships on two peer-reviewed scholarly journals is not undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That does not address the clear WP:UNDUE issue. You've raised a straw man. Nobody has suggested erase "everything found in the CV" so it's not helpful for you to suggest as much. As editors we must determine the important and encyclopedic information. These two publications are not notable and being on their mastheads is not worthy of mention in the article. If you disagree, you'll need to address the stated issue -- not bring up false ones. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Austrian business cycle and full reserve banking section

Does anyone else think that the section on Huerta de Soto´s views on Austrian business cycles and FR banking is basically dedicated exclusively to criticisms of it by Sechrest? I was thinking that an elaboration on HdS´s actual views would be in order, instead of just Sechrest´s critiques (as the latter doesn´t make much sense without knowing what HdS actually said). Furthermore, there are positive reviews of his book, e.g., by Ludwig von den Hauwe and Guido Huelsmann avilable:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2399403 http://mises.org/daily/2076

I´m just looking for some feedback before I edit the article.195.77.35.250 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. But the solution is not to add more LvMI commentaries but to look for analysis of his views in reliable third party sources. TFD (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. What do you think of the linked van den Hauwe article above? It´s not affiliated with the MI, and to my knowledge neither is he? 195.77.35.250 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sechrest review

In this edit we have referenced material being deleted (since restored). A subsequent edit summary said that de Soto did not actually write about the particular material. However, the Sechrest text is about what Sechrest wrote, not what de Soto wrote. Seeking to remove the Sechrest material because of what an editor read in de Soto's book is original research. We rely on what the secondary sources, such as Sechrest, say. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not our place to question the points made in Sechrest's review. Rather, our task is to summarize the Sechrest review as accurately as possible, with proper weight given to it. Removing the review entirely is not the proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

IP has again removed the Sechrest material with an edit summary that says the quote is libelous. Such is not the case. Sechrest is critical of de Soto's theory and writing, and has not made any defamatory comment about de Soto. The review has been restored. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you do not get to libel someone with quotes of another. You have not read the book and you have little place editing this page. It's a long book and you clearly have no knowledge of it. Sechrest is not simply critical but makes false factual assertions. Find a better quality criticism and please refrain from bringing politics into your editing strategy. The quote is too long to begin with and in poor style. --173.64.52.8 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not libel to summarize a good-faith review. Sechrest's assertions stand as having been published. If someone wants to make a rebuttal they are welcome to publish one. Binksternet (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps IP can better describe what are the false factual assertions and which of them are summarized in this article. Of course, reliable sourcing for these descriptions would be necessary. But IP cannot say "I read the book and such-and-such is false because I say so." IP needs independent sourcing. Also, IP might provide a shorter quote to resolve what IP believes is a "too long to begin with" issue. If the quote is in poor style, then that is the fault of Sechrest. – S. Rich (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For instance, the word "sin" is found on page 86, 88, 90, 92, 96, 97, 611 only in the quotations of others. The two uses in the main text are describing the views of Saravia de la Calle and Molina and Lugo. De Soto is simply discussing the well-known historical debates about usury. He does not "characterize" the practice this way himself. Furthermore, you quote too much. It has nothing to do with the source. I don't have to prove a negative buddy. You need to prove a positive. Don't turn this around. --173.64.52.8 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, you are not being very specific in your comments. Please supply the "Help:Diff" or quotes of concern. What exactly – in the Sechrest material – is inappropriate? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned with two parts of the analysis, but I am approaching one at a time. This part: "his characterization of fractional reserve banking as 'sin'".--173.64.55.173 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors refuse to read the talk page and are continuing to post false and inaccurate information. The opinions and politics of the reviewer are beside the point. One must support the quote posted and not turn the burden of evidence around. MDCory3470 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the "edit request" portions of your talk page entry because you did not request an edit. The article is locked because of your continual removal of very well-cited information from a prominent critic. If you don't like this critic's viewpoint then publish a rebuttal. Misplaced Pages will represent all viewpoints, including Sechrest's. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's inaccurate information. I can't cite someone saying you are a child molester. Citation is a red herring. It's a poor quote and criticism. Get a better one. If you want a criticism, get an accurate one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.55.162 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Jesús Huerta de Soto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesús Huerta de Soto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914000416/https://mises.org/page/1477 to https://mises.org/page/1477

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories: