Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 22 January 2014

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spain Low‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article Jesús Huerta de Soto, along with other articles relating to Austrian economics, is currently subject to active community sanctions. The current restrictions, which were implemented by consensus#Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute Old revision of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#Ludwig von Mises Institute, are: Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions.

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

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Is Hulsman correct? Did he write that?

Seeing the edit summary "Removing fringe source (from coworker) for controversial claim per WP:NPOV; WP:FRINGE; and WP:BLP)" I figured, same old biased edit. Looking at it more now, I think that if there first had been a tag like "verification and needed" and a question like, "Is Hulsman correct when he says this?" Or "what is the name of the article and how come I can't find a copy on the internet to verify he actually said this?" I might take it more seriously. But frankly I don't have the energy to track it down myself. User:Carolmooredc 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Is Hulsman correct when he says this?" is not what we mean by verification in Misplaced Pages. Please review the policy. I would hope that no editor would insert text in an article without knowing what's in the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Verification is the tag to verify he said it and make the context and other clarifications clear. If he did, and anyone says, "Well what about what so and so wrote such and such" then there can be discussion. User:Carolmooredc

I'm stunned with all your declarations of your seniority wisdom and experience as a WP editor that you do not appear to understand WP:VERIFY. Please review it thoroughly. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When we see in the RS that Hulsman wrote or said something, we are satisfying the WP:V requirement. "Is Hulsmann correct..." is a different type of question. That is, is Hulsman correct about this being the first book in 88 years to have been written on the subject? That sort of factual assertion, e.g., the truth of the assertion, is subject to a different sort of "factual verification". If another source said something different, factually, then we'd have to weigh the quality of the source. But each source, if we were able to access it, would be verified in the technical, WP sense. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich: Not sure if you are saying what I am. Verify means we theoretically can go to the source and check it out. Given that many quotes in many articles have been misrepresented, presented out of context, etc., and given that these sorts of articles usually are online, it seems like something that should be checked out and that the people challenging them might want to do that. User:Carolmooredc 02:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc Actually, per WP policy, specifically WP:BURDEN, it is you, carolmooredc who, having inserted the text in dispute, must demonstrate that it is verified by the source you cite. And I fear you still have not read the policy because the truth of Hulsmann's assertion is not what's meant by verify in this context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Whoever adds the quotations, journal title, volume, issue, and page number is meeting the burden. If the assertion had been paraphrased, then that's when AGF comes in. BURDEN works both ways -- addition and removal of material. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If she adds a full citation, then her burden has been met completely. There is nothing wrong with another editor wanting to verify a source, and it is in the spirit of good collaboration if the original editor can assist in this process, such as by providing an electronic copy of an article. But this sort of bickering here is not in the spirit of good collaboration. If you all stopped sniping at each other and started working together, one of you might have noticed that this article is online and can be verified by anyone. Now I notice that this journal is a publication of the Mises Institute, so we have a Mises author praising another Mises author in a Mises publication. That certainly is a point worth discussing regarding the appropriateness of this quote. So let's discuss that instead of wasting our time with accusations about verification and nonsense about Hulsman's article being deleted. Edit: Looks like all the quotes in this section are from Misenians (is that a word?) Maybe we can get some outside opinions into this section? Gamaliel (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that and once I read it for content (as opposed to responding to the questionable edit summary), I was skeptical of the claim. I'm actually was asking for whoever put it in to verify it since I could not find the article. Thanks to User:Gamaliel for finding it.

The relevant context reads: Few authors have consistently developed, explained, and applied Mises’s approach. Most important among these are Murray Rothbard and Hans Sennholz, who in numerous books and pamphlets...(outline the achievements)... Yet, neither Rothbard nor Sennholz wrote a treatise on money that is comparable to the one written by Mises, which first appeared in 1912. The significance of Jesús Huerta de Soto’s new 681-page book, Dinero, crédito bancario y ciclos económicos (Money, bank credit, and business cycles) is precisely that it is the first Misesian treatise on money and banking to appear since publication of Mises’s original work eighty-eight years ago.

OK, now we understand what he actually is saying; not that it was the only thing written but that it was the best thing written, in his opinion.

I think all we need is a better summary of the statement and it will of interest to readers. User:Carolmooredc 11:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hulsmann said that Soto's book was the first in 88 years. That means it was the only one in 88 years. From there, one could make a number of other deductions which while correct were not intended by Hulsmann, including it was the best, it was the worst, it was the longest, the shortest, etc. The question is whether this citation is RS for what is stated, given the author, the publisher, and the relationships of each to de Soto. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I put in one option. Those who think the quote belongs in should help get this right, here or in editing. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

False edit summary assertion on "donuts"

Huerta de Soto lives in Spain. I doubt American Yeager does. Feel free to source your assertion they have donuts in the morning. Otherwise it is a false statement in an edit summary as an excuse to remove WP:RS material and very serious, especially in an article that is part of community sanctions. I will add more reception material besides two now there. CM-DC talk 16:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

vMI is in American South. Donuts, Doughnuts, Beignets, and Crullers are the breakfast of champions in Auburn Alabama. It's like Americans in Paris munching a croissant. Lighten up, Mlle. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, did you really take literally my statement that I know what Soto has for breakfast? Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You are making the false assertion they are so close of buddies they have breakfast every morning in order to undermine a perfectly legitimate ref. CM-DC talk 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm making a joke. Steeletrap (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

edit conflict: It's all in the intentions, isn't it? I think this whole issue of defining what is a colleague and what is such a close connection it needs constant mentioning needs to be discussed in neutral forum, if you intend to put it in a section header. CM-DC talk 19:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: Just make darn sure you never add a Food section to the article about the Institute Fellows sharing a snack at vMI events. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN

RE: Jean-Claude Trichet quote. see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Book_cover_quote. The arguments from the regular deleters are too predictable so might as well get an outside opinion. CM-DC talk 18:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 incestuous shoulder-patting/LvMI-related sources.

The key to BRD is the D, not the R, Carol. This edit is not very productive. The material removed really ought to have been removed because it consists entirely of LvMI mutual appreciation, which is not encyclopedic. We already know that LvMI members love each other and are willing to say wonderful things about each other. It does not add value to this article.

Now, if Carol had opened a discussion, I would have allowed her edit to remain until the discussion ended. Since she didn't bother with the D, I'm not going to take her R as a legitimate part of the BRD process. Instead, I'm overturning it. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You got it wrong again. He boldly deleted it. I reverted it. The onus was on him to say why it should be removed. In any case, not all of Misplaced Pages agrees with your dim view of some tenured profs and well known economists. I'll wait a couple days for neutral editors to opine one these several issues in you alls latest deletionist spree and then it will be off to RSN yet again. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for forgetting to mentioned that I brought this to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Removal_of_material_with_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute_connections. SPECIFICO finally gave an opinion there. Only one other editor has replied so far stating that the Gary North blog entry which SPECIFICO originally put in (and someone else filled out with Huerta de Soto comments) is a problem - but I have no problem with removing those. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for formal RSN closure when appropriate since this issue keeps coming up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot closed it, now here at archive. The conclusions are clear. North should be removed as self-published blog but LVMI connections not a problem for the other two.

On a second section point raised there, editors also agreed that this Laudito is WP:RS for non-extraordinary factoids like this one which SPECIFICO revert at this diff: LAUDATIO in honour of Professor Jesús Huerta de SOTO from Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid on the occasion of the Doctor Honoris Causa Award Ceremony, October 22, 2010, p. 17.</ref> Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this after second edit. It didn't occur to me that that could be done. But if that's what you want. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Why tagged as non-notable?

This article has equivalents in 18 other languages. That alone does not make it notable, but it's a bit of a supporter. Tátótát (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page and any archives you'll get an idea of what's going on. This article was AfD'd here in June by Steeletrap and kept and more info added. Now User:SPECIFICO has removed reliably sourced info after tagging it as non-notable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am also working through RSN to deal with problematic removal of material showing notability. I also have found several items regarding notability had filed (plus more on further research) which will now render into Wikiformat in a day or two. If they too are removed on dubious grounds, WP:BLPN will be next step. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Honorary Degrees

Are these noteworthy events or academic honors? There are tens of thousands of institutions that grant these academic trinkets every year. Do they matter? Are they noteworthy? Can we use these primary source citations for honorary degrees from these institutions? In what way are such awards significant and worth mention in an encyclopedia? Do we see them mentioned in conventional encyclopedia articles about de Soto? SPECIFICO talk 04:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, look at the Johan Galtung article;) I often see honorary degrees mentioned in articles and include them myself when natural, for instance the four honorary degreees of Carl-Henrik Heldin, an article I started. Then I took the info from his CV. Academics are often not very well covered in easily accessable reliable sources. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that most academics' biographies are not recounted in secondary sources, let alone RS, but that begs the question as to whether these recognitions from nowhere in particular merit inclusion. I would think not. On WP we tend to think that if no independent RS paid it any attention, then it's not worth WP users' attention. SPECIFICO talk 05:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the standard is "On WP we tend to think that if no independent RS paid it any attention, then it's not worth WP users' attention." If so, we should be sure to get rid of the unsourced or equally sourced honorary mentions in Robert Barro, all of those for Milton Friedman (totally unsourced), Václav Klaus (his much better sourced extra-marital affairs would stay, of course, under that theory), Allan H. Meltzer (AEI press release??), Anna_Schwartz#Honorary_degrees (no sources, could all be fake). In fact, we could get rid of most of the info in half of the articles under Category:Chicago School economists right now because of lack of references. Certainly anything unreferenced that has an extraordinary claims of notability should go. Who knows what vandals have been up to what, after all. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from Specifico but to mention Heldin again: He is a member of several learned societies and has received several awards. I couldn't by simple googling find any truly independent sources for that, but that does hardly make it irrelevant for Misplaced Pages, as for instance being member of just one of these learned society would make him notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:Academic. Honorary degrees may be a less clear-cut case as such degrees don't by itself make a person notable, but it's pretty common to include such degrees (often in the Awards and recognition section), and I don't think we should put all that importance on whether some newspaper have happened to mention the doctorate or not; that's often pretty random. I believe these doctorates will often be mentioned in some kind of professional journals but they are often not accessible through googling. I guess your underlying concern here is Huerta's notability. Iselilja (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly standard to mention them in biographies. TFD (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Iselilja's listing in a separate section makes for easy reference and is user-friendly. I have no concern about including them in that format. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayek Spanish Edition revisted

The Editor of the Spanish edition was discussed on the talk page previously here and here. After discussion the version which remained for a couple months was:

Huerta de Soto was an editor of the Spanish language edition of works by Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, working with the editors of the University of Chicago Press's Collected Works of F.A. Hayek. Seven such volumes were published between 1995 and 2001.

This was truncated to remove the notability factors sometime after that and of course the "may not meet Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline" tag later inserted. As it happens, at WP:RSN User:Itsmejudith wrote "It seems to me that editing the Spanish translation of Hayek does meet the notability requirement for an economist, so that needs to go into the lead. The source can be the Hayek books themselves."

The current refs support the earlier versions:

• Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see "Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial" reads: Stephen Kresge, General Editor, The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek in 22 volumes, published by The University of Chicago Press in the U.S. and Routledge in England, commissioned (Huerta de Soto) "Editor of the Spanish Edition" to all Spanish-speaking countries .
• It was necessary to list all seven books because SPECIFICO refused to accept the above from Huerta de Soto's CV. However, perhaps all that is needed is one more more links to the editorial pages of English version books, such as this one that clearly states: Editor of the Spanish Edition: Jesus Huerta de Soto and then a listing of the books google links either without the details of the editors of the English language edition or specifying that that is their role. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

At this diff I added it writing: add new impeccable ref on "Editor of the Spanish Edition"; link/ref to whole series; and better organize other refs). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Jesús Huerta de Soto website, see Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial; section includes information on the Compete Works of F.A. Hayek, pp. 1-2; New Library of Liberty, pp. 3-4; Journal of Market Processes, pp. 4-5.
2. Jesús Huerta de Soto edited these volumes of the series F.A. Hayek, Obras Completas (in Spanish), all published by Unión Editorial, Madrid: La Tendencia del Pensamiento Económico: Ensayos, editor with William Warren Bartley, Stephen Kresge, 1995; Las Vicisitudes del Liberalismo: Ensayos sobre Economía Austriaca y el Ideal de la Libertad, editor with Peter G. Klein, 1996; Contra Keynes y Cambridge: Ensayos, Correspondencia, editor with Bruce Caldwell, 1996; Hayek sobre Hayek: Un Diálogo Autobiográfico, La Fatal Arrogancia: Los Errores del Socialismo, editor with Stephen Kresge, Leif Wenar, 1997; Socialismo y Guerra: Ensayos, Documentos y Reseñas, editor with Bruce Caldwell, 1998; Ensayos de Teoría Monetaria (two volumes in 2000, with Stephen Kresge and José Antonio de Aguirre and 2001. For more details see Jesús Huerta de Soto website, Curriculum Vitae, Labor Editorial, A. Compete Works of F.A. Hayek, pp. 1-2.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Spain articles
• Low-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• Start-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles