Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::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.
::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 (''The Rothbard-Rockwell Report'' January 1992, pp.5-13).
:The article followed the ], 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)
:Other than that, AFAIK Rothbard never mentioned Duke.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Mozart Was a Red was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 December 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Murray Rothbard. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Template:WP1.0
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
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 within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
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)
@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)
I removed it from the intro paragraph because it is mentioned extensively later on in the page. We do not need to give this material such undue weight, especially since it is mentioned in detail later on in the page and is a fraction of the amount of work that Rothbard put out. Also, October 2022 is not that long ago relatively given the fact that the article was created over 10 years ago. Firefly115 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Usually a top section is meant to reflect the later sections (see MOS:LEADREL), and per WP:PROPORTION both the top and later sections "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Can you explain further what makes the paragraph disproportionate to its treatment by independent reliable sources, and if any solutions aside from deletion (see WP:PRESERVE) would resolve the problem? Perhaps a compromise can be reached. Llll5032 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Good to discuss but the question in your post is not a good framework for it. It's impossible to establish anything under the quoted standard, and it's sort of saying that the only valid argument for leaving it out is to do so / prove a negative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've not taken the deep dive / or have prior expertise on Rothbard to more fully understand his history related to that section. But it appears that he discussed Duke and McCarthy in a very narrow context of tactics and possibly the appeal of non-racist points of Duke. IMO multiple times over this should not be in the lead. Given that narrow context of his mention, the discussed text and its placement in the lead is gives the appearance of being chosen for bad optics rather than being an informative summary of the body of the article or his positions. Also the chosen words (and omissions from what is in the body) implies a wider embracing of much-hated Duke and McCarthy, also giving the entry that appearance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The decision to ally with Paleocons and right wing populists wasn’t a narrow tactical choice.
That's not what the discussed sentence is about. It is about him in relation to Duke and McCarthy specifically. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
its an important illustration of what paleolibertarianism meant and wny it was/is controversial. that said, if thats the only piece of the paragraph you disagree with, we cam restore the rest of it.Prezbo (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Not speaking for every item in it, but it looks like there is some good information / summary in that paragraph. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (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)
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)
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)
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)
Other than that, AFAIK Rothbard never mentioned Duke.
Merging "Political activism" section into "Life and work" section
I WP:BOLDlymerged 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)
