Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 4 February 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by EllenCT

Ellen’s evidence is misleading/off-topic. The disputes she refers to are outside the scope of Austrian Economics and as far as I know her opponents have not been involved in the Austrian Economics disputes; at least not prominently. They (Mattnad, Morphh, VictorD7, Capitalismojo) are not named as parties in the case and did not comment in the Request for Arbitration thread. Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, I'd say that presenting evidence concerning non-parties is allowed (it can be done to demonstrate the editing environment prevailing in a given topic area for instance to ask ArbCom to authorise the imposition of discretionary sanctions, or even in preparation for asking that said non-parties be added as parties), but the people whose actions are discussed should be notified. If EllenCT has not done so in a reasonable time I'll ask the clerks to do that on her behalf. I do not comment on whether the evidence is material to the case at hand or not, because I have not really examined it in depth yet, although I'll say that it's rare for ArbCom to exclude evidence which includes diffs at this stage (irrelevant evidence is usually just ignored at the voting stage). Salvio 12:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Do I reply to Ellen's evidence under her section or do I add my own evidence section, which discusses her evidence? My disputes with Ellen have primarily been with regard to her inserting WP:SYN. She uses primary sources and then applies her own interpretation to the results, then tries to insert it into any weakly related article. If we disagree, we're personally attacked as incompetent for not seeing the obvious WP:CK and labeled whitewashing libertarian "Randroids". I'd be happy to have it reviewed by fellow editors - many disputes were RFC, which in each case has !voted against her position. Morphh 15:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Morphh. To reply, you must create your own section: "The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect". You can read more at the top of the evidence page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can post rebuttals on the main page, but it's also acceptable to post them on this talk page. Salvio 19:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"outside the scope of Austrian Economics" in what way? The editors with the behavior problems on the subject of the case edit from the premise that taxation is theft by force instead of a means of maintaining and supporting commerce. The reasons for the belief in the United States vary from the fear that a large government may contradict the Bible more effectively with public education than would allow parents to maintain "messenger of God" status with their kids, trust in the so-called axioms put forth by paid economic advocates for the rich, inertia, and various other motivations. And just look at their talk pages if you think they don't collude. EllenCT (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to me as one of these editors, I've never expressed, nor do I hold such views. I've also not seen the other editors referenced in your evidence (@Mattnad:@VictorD7:@Capitalismojo:) express such views, not that such views should matter when following Misplaced Pages policy. For reviewing editors, please take Ellen's statements with caution and verify their validity. Morphh 01:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This is yet another chapter in Ellen's long, well documented history of tendentious behavior. Her "evidence" has nothing to do with this dispute. She's apparently trying to hijack this process in the delusional hope that it will help her in wider content disputes. I don't recall ever mentioning Austrian economics on Misplaced Pages; I certainly never edited about it. I don't even identify as an Austrian, and, knowing her history, I seriously doubt Ellen could articulate a coherent definition of the school without some panicked, hurried googling (hint - it's not about the Bible). She's persistently misrepresented sources, Wiki policy, and other editors' positions, and has alienated editors from across the ideological spectrum. Morphh, I'm tempted to rebut Ellen on the official evidence page, but I'm not familiar with this procedure and I'm not sure how appropriate that would be. I figured at least someone should post a section briefly pointing out that Ellen's "evidence" is wildly off topic and should be disregarded, just in case not every reader is as thorough as he ideally should be. What do you think? VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: I followed @Capitalismojo:'s lead and posted a response here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop. I hope this is correct. If not, I can replicate my response to EllenCT's accusations in another place.Mattnad (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iselilja: & @Salvio giuliano:, I also placed mine with Capitalistmojo and Mattnad so they were all in one place, but as Mattnad stated, I'd be happy to move it where you guys think it needs to be. Morphh 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted my section on the Evidence page to cover the bases, though I wouldn't be surprised if all that stuff gets moved or deleted. VictorD7 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be posting soon, but the great majority of these disputes are regarding professors and writers associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Morphh:I got pinged but didn't answer, because I though the arbitrators or clerks were the right persons to do so (I am just a hang-around here). I see you posted in the «Comment on Ellen’s evidence» section and there are now (already) 5 entries in that section so it would seem natural that arbitrators should pay attention to it (even though Salvio says it is normally an obscure place). Since Ellen’s evidence in my view is off-topic, it is somewhat tidy that the rebuttals to an off-topic «evidence» is separated a bit from the ordinary evidence section (but I think Victor’s evidence was totally appropriate where he placed it also). Personally, I would like the arbitrators to go further than just disregard Ellen's evidence; and actually give her an admonishment based on what has been pointed out in the various rebuttals to her claims; I will probably suggest this on the workshop page. But I am of course not sure that the arbitrators will spend much time on considering her «evidence»/behaviour and may choose to focus solely on the real Austrian disputes. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance of brevity in presenting evidence?

On ANIs, users (and sadly, admins) often ignore complaints that are too long. I'm worried that will happen to my presentation of evidence here. However, I hear that Arbcoms are more serious about this stuf than admins; can I get a guarantee that the Arbcom will read my entire presentation of evidence? (Long as it is now, there is more to come -- I am going to create a second section on user misconduct.) I think the stuff I have now is important, but I am willing to cut it down if the arbcom won't read all of it. Steeletrap (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are supposed to read all evidence that is submitted, but please be aware that there are limits on the number of words and diffs (for parties, it's 1000 words and 100 diffs, whereas for non-parties it's 500 and 50 respectively). Salvio 10:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I request an in-depth discussion on the use and spelling of "chronophagousity." "Tempovoracity" would be the preferred legal term. Discuss. --DHeyward (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney's ban

I see that evidence has been submitted concerning MilesMoney's ban; please note that it is entirely superfluous: ArbCom have already reviewed the sanction in question, refusing to overturn it. Also this would probably be the wrong venue anyway, considering that the appeal of a community ban is usually heard by WP:BASC and not by ArbCom en banc. Salvio 11:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What is relevant here is the back and forth between TParis and an editor in this Arbitration regarding things TParis wrote on the MilesMoney ban ANI and TParis talk page and TParis original table. Since TParis has removed all that material, I won't link to it when I do my evidence, but I wish he would refer to his comments here. (Hope that isn't canvassing!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm, my page gets auto-archived. What material have I removed exactly that you wish to refer to? Have you searched my archives? And can you clarify which editor I've been going back and forth with. I don't think I've interacted much with editors on either side. Specifico maybe? We discussed MilesMoney once but I wouldn't say that we've gone back and forth about it.--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you ask: SPECIFICO's complaint you mentioned his hounding editors in your close to MilesMoney ANI and also here. Your reply that almost inspires me to write a song. And then TParis "(Remove accusation of houding)" and TParis "(Rm SPECIFICO column)". I guess I hadn't noticed that you'd removed those when I complained about SPECIFICO wikihounding me on your talk page, which lead to the request for Arbitration. Just a helpful context I hope you don't mind too much my bringing up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed them because my impression when I closed the thread was that SPECIFICO had replied to a significant majority of the opponents. When I actually did the numbers, it was still uncomfortably high but not near what my impression was and it was marginal whether it was hounding. I was particularly concerned with the folks he identified as "involved" as an ad hominem counter to their arguments but that number was actually quite small (4 or 5, you can see the chart's history for the actual number) and so as that was my main concern and the facts showed it was a much lower response than my initial impression, I retracted the accusation.--v/r - TP 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Question on notification

Note: moved from main page talk per what Iselilja wrote below.

Will Clerks notify (uninvolved) editors listed here re: the Arbitration? If not, can involved editors notify them? Can we notify all other editors who had more than a casual participation in one or more articles since dispute began? Or at least Ping any whose comments we link to? I guess in absence of reply I should go by Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Notes_and_references which quotes past Arbitrations on this topic. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was notified by a clerk that the case was opened, so I belive those of us who gave statements have been notified. Otherwise, it may seem like you are more likely to receive an answer from an arbitrator if you post at the evidence talk page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are wanting to present evidence regarding users who are not listed as parties then you must notify the non-parties that you have presented evidence about them and you should bring up with the arbitrators whether or not the users should be added as parties to the case. Otherwise, so far as I can tell, standard canvassing rules apply. Ks0stm 15:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I read "present evidence regarding users" as including editors who have commented in any substantive and especially repeated manner on the various talk page sections or in diffs I've presented. And they'd be included under "standard canvassing rules" anyway. I'll take another day or two to think about it and report here as necessary per wp:canvassing rules. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between historical and present philosophy? Suggestion

I've read the articles and I am not a participant in the case. But reading the article, I get the perception that both Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman both consider it fringe. That raises a giant red flag in my mind as I suspect neither of those economists agree about much. Is it the case that there are two aspects of "Austrian economics" that are being conflated? It would be easy to make the case that Marxism and Communism are now "fringe" as the dissolution of the USSR and the new open market of China show. It would be hard to argue that Cuba and North Korea have emerged victorious as an economic model. I would be reluctant to label any of them fringe as they have all created the basis for modern economic theory. To the extent Keynsian and non-Keynsian economists concur is more of an advance of the science rather than an agreement that a certain view is fringe. Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" might be dated but it would be abuse of the label "fringe" to label it as such just as labeling Krugman's embrace of Carter's economic policy is fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is an overabundance of reliance on our policy, WP:FRINGE, as a weapon or tool rather than a guidance. I'm concerned that WP:FRINGE is being used here to cover all minority or non-mainstream views rather than pseudoscience. The fringe label is being used as an ad hominem against the sources presented by those supportive of the minority position creating a hostile environment. Editors supporting the mainstream view are not responding to the concerns of others in good faith and tendentiously using WP:FRINGE as their go-to answer for material they dispute with only superficial investigation of the sources. That's my general impression, anyway.--v/r - TP 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi TP. Can you provide some examples of edits to articles that support your position? It seems like a kneejerk reaction. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It is fringe because Austrians reject the scientific method and do not publish papers in academic journals. Scientists develop hypotheses that can be tested and publish them where other scientists can challenge them. But Austrians claim the scientific method cannot be used in economics. So they do not publish papers or submit their views to the scrutiny of mainstream economists. That puts them in the same pseudoscience category as astrologists and faith healers. Of course they could be right. It may be that since economic activity is the product of multiple individual decisions of people with free will, it is impossible to treat economics as a science that relies on empirical evidence. TFD (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

But as devil's advocate, is their a distinction between historical and current views? As my example, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" is dated but not "fringe". Newtonian laws of motion are dated but not fringe. Marxism is dated but not fringe. Anyone that cites outdated views is not fringe. I suspect Krugman and Freidman would have different takes on old Keynesian economic theories and yet understand it's shortcomings. Disputes shouldn't always fall into a correct and fringe buckets. Bitcoin and other anonymous currency, for example, seems like an implementation of a form of austrian economics and it exists as more than a thought experiment. Is it to omuch of a reach to call such theories as "fringe?" --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a workshop discussion of this. I won't repeat my comments there. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop#Submissions_by_Steeletrap_and_Shii_vis-a-vis_WP:FRINGE. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward:On the basis of which "form of Austerian economics" (e.g., whose theories?) would you consider Bitcoin to be an implementation?

In addition to the divisions within the Austrian School (since the 1930s?) and the exacerbation of that by the establishment of the Mises Institute, the economists I've cited (Krugman, DeLong, Caplan) for their criticisms of Miseans (i.e., not those associated with Hayek) are criticizing individual Miseans on the basis of logical inconsistencies in their theories (or "predictions", as the case may be) per se.

That is besides criticism and ostracization on the basis of the refusal to employ standard metrics to assess their theories and engage other economists in meaningful discussion.

Accordingly, I don't think that the theories under criticism are technically even valid theories, because they have been shown to be logically inconsistent. That is not a divide between historical and current views, but deficient reasoning coupled with a refusal to engage in rational debate about those views in the present tense. Caplan states that Rothbard does not even understand a position he attacks.

It is clear why DeLong and Krugman include characterizations related to ideology in their criticism. There is the following statement in yet another NYT column by Krugman that specifically mentions Misplaced Pages

Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it's changes, only that it's been around a while and based on evolving economic thought, I'd be reluctant to label it fringe especially if they've had noticeable impacts on economic theory. The first I even heard about it was when Ross Ulbricht was arrested for allegedly running Silk Road . For Krugman, I'd expect a defense of expansion of money supply and deficits, though historically when M2 was controlled by the Fed, we had "stagflation." Now the Fed targets interest rates as far as I can tell. Still, Keynesian survived, perhaps reformed, when by the end of the 1970's and about 8 years off the gold standard (and famous statements "We are all Keynesians now"), we had double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates, there weren't many economists defending it. Were Milton Friedman alive, I'd suspect he might be critical of Austrian economics but not for the same reasons as Krugman andmy little "this can't be right" bell went off when the article listed both Krugman and Friedman. My main concern now is how much of the opposition is to the theory vs. opposition to politicians like Ron Paul mentioned in Ulbricht articles? --DHeyward (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually googling "austrian economics bitcoin" yields a bit morethan just Ulbricht. That was just the first time I saw "Austrian economics." --DHeyward (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm no economist, either, and I'm inclined to think that you may know more about the field than me. The perspective I'm taking is more of a meta-analysis, a discourse analysis, perhaps.

It seems to me that Friedman admits Hayek's theory is a theory, but finds that it is wrong upon analyzing it. Krugman does the same for some of the theories. On the other hand, other pronouncements do not seem to even be considered to merit a response as theories, because they are logically incoherent/inconsistent, etc. Take a look at this passage from a pro source cited in the articleHayekian Trade Cycle Theory: A Reappraisal.

Even those who recognize the logical integrity of the theory may have doubts about both its historical significance and its present-day relevance: The Hayekian theory might explain some aspects of some nineteenth- and early twentieth-century trade cycles, but it does not explain much, and it does not explain anything about modern fluctuations in economic activity.

Note that the statement presumes a recognition of "logical integrity". In regard to the concept of "theory" in general, the last sentence of the lead of the corresponding Misplaced Pages article reads

A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

I don't think that the "predictions" and the like of the "latter-day" Austerians meet that criteria, and that is the basis of Krugman and DeLong's references to "ideological beliefs", prophecy, etc. It seems necessary to differentiate that which qualifies as "theory" among the body of pronouncements by the Austerians and that which doesn't. Pronouncements not deemed to meet the standard to be considered viable theory would further seem to require evaluation to see if they fall under WP:FRINGE.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a good anaylsis. Earlier Austrians and some modern ones participated in the academic field of economics while the economists associated with the LvMI do not. But I do not think that is an issue here. The case is about editing articles, mostly biographies related to the LvMI, not about using LvMI views in general economics articles. The disputed text was mostly about adding information that had nothing to do with economic theory, for example the connection between individuals and the Ku Klux Klan, holocaust denial and homophobia.

I have worked on a number of articles about the American Right and I think these articles should accurately portray what they are about, who belongs, what they believe, what they do, how they influence the mainstream. When MilesMoney and others put in that Rothbard endorsed the campaign of David Duke (which is false), that is just using guilt by association to discredit him. They are putting their desire to discredit the LvMI above the requirement to describe them as they are seen in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources have to meet RS and not be misrepresented. That seems to relate to an aspect of WP:Fringe that should be easier to sort out. I don't intend to look at the sources in questin to that dispute, but I did see the following mention in a very recent NYT article relating to Rothbard

They envisioned a libertarian alliance with “cultural and moral traditionalists” who shared a dislike for everything from environmentalism to postmodern art. Mr. Rothbard applauded the “right-wing populism” of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member who ran for governor of Louisiana...

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The addition of "endorsed" was misleading. But I think it was a good-faith mistake. First, it was sourced to a RS. Second, it's clear that Rothbard endorsed Duke's platform right after the campaign ended, including Duke's stances "against racial set-asides" and for "equal rights for ... whites." Duke's policy positions were widely described in the media as reflecting a thinly-veiled neo-Nazi/white nationalist positions. Steeletrap (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I get the impression Workshop is the place for these types of discussions and that this is a talk page for process-related questions/issues. I doubt the Arbitrators will take anything said here seriously. Thus I just left a couple quick notes about what's relevant on the Evidence or Workshop page. I mean, if this page is a free for all, then anything mentioned in Evidence could be brought here and I could quote lots and lots of stuff and opine upon it, as my evidence indicates. As TParis commented on workshop, any clearly new evidence also doesn't belong here. So perhaps we should stop it now? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally it is not a good idea to use a passing reference to someone about something they did decades before in an article about current politics. The source for the claim is an article written by Rothbard ("Right-wing Populism" January 1992). The claim is misleading because Rothbard said that rather run on a Klan platform, Duke had run on a "right-wing populist" platform that conservatives and libertarians could support. The NYT article implies that Rothbard supported Duke's KKK platform. Dan Quayle also "endorsed" the platform, while at the same time opposing Duke because of his past. (see Chip Berlet. Right-wing populism in America (2000), pp. 284-285.)

This particular article by Rothbard already comprised one third a significant part of his Misplaced Pages article. However, MilesMoney found another source, an article by James Kirchick about Ron Paul, that said Rothbard, in the newsletter he co-edited with Rockwell, endorsed Duke when he ran for governor. However that is impossible since the article was written after Duke ran for office. That did not stop MilesMoney, Steeletrap and SPECIFICO from insisting that be added too.

TFD (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TFD. Could you explain what you mean by this: "This particular article by Rothbard already comprised one third of his Misplaced Pages article." Also, what do you mean by "insisting"? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not a third of the article, but it is the last paragraph in Murray Rothbard#Political activism and most of Murray Rothbard#Paleolibertarianism. By "insist" I mean continuing to argue for the edit on the talk page and RSN long after it had been explained that Rothbard had not mentioned Duke in the newsletter until after the campaign was over. You know that Rothbard was not a klansman or holocaust denier (at least not that we know), yet support edits that imply he was. TFD (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So, are you retracting your statement about 1/3 of the article? I think it's unfortunate to make inaccurate and unsupportable allegations here at this proceeding. Calling a good faith disagreement, conducted in an orderly and civil framework "insisting" is likewise an inappropriate way to present facts to Arbcom, most of whom have no prior familiarity with these matters and have a right to rely on all the statements here for accuracy and an appropriate level of care in presentation. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It also appears necessary to state that, just because you or another editor may have "pointed out" your disagreement with Steeletrap's view, it is perfectly appropriate for there to be further good faith discussion of whatever you "pointed out" or of other points which you may not have pointed out or otherwise failed to address. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you need to stop making false statements. Duke may have ditched the white robes and stopped using the n-word, but his 1991 platform of "equal rights for whites" was NOT a mainstream libertarian/conservative message. His platform was regarded as veiled racism and neo-Nazism by the mainstream media and other RS. Hence his ostracism from the entire Republican leadership, including President Bush and Vice President Quayle, who (in virtually unprecedented fashion) endorsed his Democratic opponent. In one of his many verbal flubs, Dan Quayle stated that Duke's "message" of 'putting welfare recipients back to work' was a good one (this was really a rhetorical tool aimed at underscoring how bad the "messenger" was). But he did not "endorse" that message in the highly specific and explicit sense Rothbard did. (Rothbard praised Duke's attacking of "racial set asides" and support for "equal rights ... for whites.") Steeletrap (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, please provide diffs supporting your charge that we have stated Rothbard was pro-KKK or a Holocaust denier. We have stated that he supported Duke's platform, in conformity with numerous RS (including an article in last week's New York Times). Steeletrap (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, "equal rights for whites" was not a plank in the 1991 Duke platform. It is not in any of the sources that you and MilesMoney presented, and I have no found it any reliable sources. Since you have put it in quotes, kindly provide a source. More importantly, we are not supposed to conduct original research and provide our own views on Rothbard's essay. We cannot take a source about Duke and a source about Rothbard's article about him, and make a judgment on what Rothbard wrote. The is the role of journalists and academics and our role is to report what they say, not replicate their original research.

I did not say you stated Rothbard was pro-KKK or a holocaust denier, but that you implied it. You implied it by saying he "endorsed" the campaign of "former KKK leader David Duke" and was influenced by the "holocaust denier Harry Barnes." If I said the best known conservative theorist was the anti-Semite Edmund Burke or that Protestantism was founded by the anti-Semite Martin Luther, one would think by implication that conservatives and Protestants had something to do with anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD. I'd appreciate a response to my post above. Because, as you know, your recent participation in the Austrian School articles commenced when I reached out to you and invited you to participate (despite knowing that you and I would often disagree about content in those articles) your suggestion that I willfully refused to engage in good faith discussion with you about this or that disagreement is bizarre and unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The media reports of the time virtually always described Duke as a former KKK Grand Wizard. That's because, in the view of RS, the racism espoused and developed in that period of this life were connected to his 1991 political platform, even if in a repackaged form. In the weeks leading up to the election, Duke (according to the NYT) "equated the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany with affirmative action programs in the United States." His campaign slogan was "equal rights for all", and he was specifically referring to equal rights for whites. These are the statements of someone advancing a racist agenda; thus he was considered such by RS. You and Rothbard are entitled to disagree with the view that Duke was advancing a racist platform in 1991, but we have to go off of RS. The vast, vast majority of RS discussing the 1991 campaign describe Duke as a "former KKK grand wizard", so we should use that description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 February 2014

The discussion above is pretty much Godwinned. It should be apparent that the first reference David Duke should have been reverted and that line of thought banned as having lost argument, per Godwin's law. It's pretty clear that whole line of reasoning and discussion is pointless and counter-productive as economic theories are about human behavior regarding choice. Fractional reserve banking, utility, opportunity cost, price indifference, taxation, money supply, interest rates, etc, have no racial preference nor are Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, or austrian or any other economic theory inherently more racist. David Duke is not an economist. Nor would it be appropriate to find a source that some dictator with an awful human rights record was a fan of Paul Krugman and tie them together. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, I wonder whether you've misunderstood. It was the economist who was the "fan" of Duke, not the other way around as your analogy suggests. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole discussion is misplaced. The one paragraph in Rothbard's entry about his support for Duke's right-wing populism is sourced to high quality mainstream sources. Rothbard's praise of Duke has received significant coverage in RS, including a mention in last week's NYT article on Rand Paul. Mention in RS, and not our personal judgment, is the gold standard for notability on WP. Steeletrap (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You said, "You and Rothbard are entitled to disagree with the view that Duke was advancing a racist platform in 1991." As far as I know I have never commented on whether the platform was racist. It could be that "equal rights for all"="equal rights for whites" = white supremacy, and by not condemning Duke, Rothbard was advocating white supremacy. And you might want to explain how this differs from the mainstream Republican Southern Strategy. However this is all synthesis and has no place in Misplaced Pages. If reliable sources draw that connection, we can mention it. but if they ignore it, then so should we. TFD (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you continued to argue that Rothbard "endorsed" the Duke campaign long after it was pointed out to you that the source Kirchick used was an article written after the campaign was over. I agree you are on firmer ground with the political analysis in the NYT. But no serious scholar writing an article about Rothbard would use an analysis of Rand Paul for information about Rothbard's writing on David Duke 20 years before. It is likely anyway that the analysis does not meet rs, because it is an opinion piece rather than a news article. And we can read Rothbard's article and determine what he said. By running on views acceptable to libertarians and conservatives, he did way better than he had promoting a KKK platform. The lesson was that Libertarians could achieve electoral success by doing the same. There is nothing particularly inaccurate about his comments, and writers on the American Right have made the same observation. TFD (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The NYT piece was not an opinion piece, as someone who regularly reads papers like the Times could easily tell you.

Again, you object to characterizing Duke as a "former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke" in the article. But this is mentioned on basically every article about Duke written during his gubernatorial run and since them, including the NYT article from last week which discussed Rothbard's sympathy for Duke's 91 campaign. So that's how we should present him, whether or not you think that's "guilt by association."

Duke was opposed by virtually all mainstream Republicans and conservative/libertarian academics. He was widely considered to be running on a racist and neo-Nazi platform, and the mainstream Republicans in that state joined the Louisiana Coalition against Racism and Nazism to fight Duke's election. As you mention, Duke did win lot of votes. He did so in spite of being completely ostracized by the mainstream. Duke's votes came from racially concerned white people, which was a sizable chunk of the electorate in 1991 Louisiania. Though Duke denied being a racist and did not use racial slurs, the perception of virtually all mainstream sources (which apparently you and Rothbard disagree with) is that Duke was advocating racism in the campaign. It is debated whether Bush and Reagan ran on racism, but it is not debated (among non-fringe sources) that Duke did this. The perception that he ran a racist campaign is the reason the press so often mentions what you deem to be an unimportant part of Rothbard's legacy. It shocks people that an intellectual with substantial influence over a mainstream political figure (Rand Paul) was sympathetic to Duke's 1991 campaign. (the reaction would be very different had Rothbard endorsed a typical "southern strategy" Republican.) Steeletrap (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(Can you please stop saying "you and Rothbard.") I have never identified here with Rothbard or Austrian economists. My only concern is that articles are prepared according to policy. Your statement that Duke "was widely considered to be running on a racist and neo-Nazi platform" is wrong and you have never provided any sources to support it. In fact I provided sources that say he abandoned the KKK rhetoric, which is why he won the primary and what Rothbard wrote about. Your approach appears to be that you think everyone who has an opinion different from yours has the same opinion. You form opinions about events then Google search for sources, instead of researching topics and letting the sources guide what you write. TFD (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mention of David Duke in the article on Austrian Economics seems entirely out of place. Just like an article on Chemical bonds mentions Linus Pauling there is no need to mention any of the quackery that would be weighted properly in his bio. It simply has no relevance. Contrived connections have no place in the article. Just like "Noted neo-Keynesian Paul Krugman, who shares a love of vanilla pudding with former candidate David Duke..." is a gratuitous reference. So is other associations that have high political coverage but unrelated to the topic "For Senator Ted Kennedy championed universal healthcare but Mary Jo Kopechne did not survive to take advantage of it." We also don't mention that Obama smokes when talking about the ] It's gratuitous and a logical fallacy of argument. It doesn't matter how much individual coverage they got or what reliable sources have printed these facts. They're not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it would be out of place to mention Rothbard's sympathy for Duke's campaign in the AE article! We mention a few sentences about it on the Rothbard biography, under the section about political activism. Everything is sourced to RS. This is what TFD is apparently objecting to. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: There is no mention of David Duke in the article about Austrian Economics. What was discussed above was a small part of the biographical article on Murray Rothbard. Please consider whether you're familiar enough with the background and the issues here to contribute constructively. I know that you are well-intentioned but the result could be to confuse other readers. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on above: Below are some comments on the process we see above. Note: I see there were some "new evidence" diffs inserted above. I have mentioned diffs of my previous entered evidence or quotes of material above.

• 1. TParis wrote the "real problem here is an overabundance of reliance on our policy, WP:FRINGE, as a weapon or tool rather than a guidance.... as an ad hominem against the sources presented by those supportive of the minority position creating a hostile environment. Editors supporting the mainstream view are not responding to the concerns of others in good faith and tendentiously using WP:FRINGE as their go-to answer for material they dispute with only superficial investigation of the sources."

Most of My Evidence makes the point that fringe-type arguments are used as an excuse to put in negative, WP:Undue whole sections by heavily partisan sources about minor, dated, or out of context statements by subjects of BLPs, while removing evidence of notability and credibility about them.

• 2. Similarly, in evidence Shii said fringe "is functioning as a talisman to ward off discussion."

My "Fringe" evidence presents a couple of examples of claims that other editors are not competent to edit or opine on the Austrian economics biographies because they don't know the difference between "fringe" and "mainstream" in economics., . However, in all these biographies knowledge of economics rarely is needed to fill out biographical, notability and viewpoint details about professors and/or authors.

• 3. The Four Deuces writes above that "The disputed text was mostly about adding information that had nothing to do with economic theory, for example the connection between individuals and the Ku Klux Klan, holocaust denial and homophobia."

Here's relevant RSN to the David Duke issue.

Note that (the deceased) Murray Rothbard is considered a leading figure among American libertarians and is highly regarded by many Mises.org-related figures. His article's "What links here" shows he's listed as an influence, or quoted, in over 100 BLPs and other articles. Thus the effort to tarnish Rothbard's reputation negatively affects a lot of BLPs of professors and writers. Two particularly absurd removals of RS from My Evidence are of special note: removal of 7 refs that he's an Austrian economist and removal of around a dozens refs saying he's an historian. See also the incredibly biased "Viewpoints" section which doesn't distinguish between his most important contributions in thought and his most obscure and absurd rants. It also lacks biographical context, especially regarding the circa 1988-1992ish period when he was pursuing his failed activist strategy of trying to appeal to "right wing populists".

Because of constantly having to deal with these POV editing problems on a number of BLPs, I have not had the time or energy to restructure the Rothbard article in an NPOV way and add a lot of WP:RS material about him that I have in my files.

4. Finally, the discussion above is typical of those with Steeletrap and SPECIFICO. They confuse, frustrate and exhaust editors with their constant and mutually reinforcing flood of convoluted arguments, making it easier to keep their policy-violating material in articles. (See My Evidence under Behavior Issues, both Edit warring/flouting consensus and Tag-team editing/Meatpuppetry). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Need Clerk to clarify purpose of talk page

I was told I should not provide "new evidence" at the Workshop and see we aren't supposed to bicker there. So why are people presenting and demanding evidence on this talk page and should it stop? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence is only to be presented at the Evidence page, and discussed at the evidence talk page (this page). The purpose of the Workshop is to propose and discuss possible and/or recommended outcomes to the case, such as which findings of fact or remedies would be of interest to the Committee to consider before reaching a final decision. So, yes. There should be no evidence at the Workshop. If you feel that you need your word limit to be extended to be able to provide all the evidence you need, feel free to ask one of the drafting arbitrators for such an extension. — ΛΧΣ 18:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, then why does Evidence page from its initiation here include "Analysis of Evidence" which is filled with others' analysis and even new evidence. I was only one warned not to present new evidence and not told that this page could be used for analysis. I guess I should just move my whole discussion here then?? Thanks. Before I only checked the current Gun Control arbitration that wasn't helpful; just checked two broad topic closed arbitrations 1 and 2 and see Workshop section on "Analysis of Evidence" not used or only used once. So will proceed to move mine over... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Last minute flood of evidence?

I see there's an evidence deadline 8 Feb 2014 (midnight). I assume if someone puts in a bunch of evidence 5 minutes or two or three hours before midnight we'll be given time to provide arguments or diffs to counter it if necessary? I've been told "new evidence" to counter such evidence is not allowed at Workshop. Just wondering. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be regarded unfavorably, as an attempt to game the system. Steeletrap (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Other comments on WP:fringe vs. minority position

1. WP:FRINGE is about the sciences. Is economics a hard science?

• Steeletrap in evidence says the ‘Miseans” are fringe because of generalizations about all of them from Bryan Caplan and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, someone’s personal comment about Rothbard’s alleged refusal to try to publish in academic journals, and the fact a couple economists calling them a “cult.”

To me, this seems like pretty thin evidence to deprecate the work of dozens of professors and writers with even the loosest of association with the Mises Institute and assert that they have one narrow “Misean” cultish view. Category:Austrian School economists suggests the many individuals who have inspired these scholars and in my experience those who have published with or spoken at Ludwig von Mises Institute events have a variety of views, many original, influenced by them.

Note also that many Austrian and "Misean" economists are economic historians (for example, Rothbard, Woods, DiLorenoz, Murphy) who believe studying a human economic history filled with Economic bubbles, stock market panics and crashes, hyperinflation, currency crises, mass unemployment, trade wars and wars over trade is as ormore useful than focusing on mathematical models. Economic history is a real discipline.

Finally, I have to question whether "WP:Fringe" applies to economics - or any social science - where little scientific experimentation can be done and How to Lie with Statistics is practiced more easily than in the hard sciences. Also, many "mainstream" economists work for government, or else their universities, corporate or think tank clients or employers receive substantial funding or regulatory benefits from government. Many move back and forth between lucrative and prestigious private sector and government positions. A primary reason free marketeers are "ostracized" by “mainstreamers” is that free marketeers’s analysis blames government policies (and even mainstream economists!) for most of our economic problems.

• The Four Deuces on this talk page writes “It is fringe because Austrians reject the scientific method and do not publish papers in academic journals." etc...

Again, no evidence of this. However, he does make the excellent point, per mine above, that "It may be that since economic activity is the product of multiple individual decisions of people with free will, it is impossible to treat economics as a science that relies on empirical evidence.” These methodological disagreements are well within the borders of acceptable social science discourse where there are majority and minority opinions - which may change status over time. (New paradigms happen.) They are not an excuse to violate Misplaced Pages BLP and NPOV policies.

2. Is Ludwig von Mises Institute fringe?

• Note that looking at Ludwig von Mises Institute article for the first time in a couple months it also needs to have it's negative information reviewed and more NPOV material entered. (Per my evidence, MilesMoney was banned from editing the article because of BLP violations; his supporters who engaged in similar activity were not. EllenCT is right that at least one unfair thing happened to MilesMoney.) Anyway, The Four Deuces writes in Evidence that "original publications of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) are fringe and present views not present in academic writing."

First, I don't see any evidences presented of that assertion. LvMI publishes a lot of out-of-print books originally published by more mainstream publishers, obviously is well-funded enough to pay editors, popularizes original work by professors and writers who have published in mainstream outlets and promotes those works through LvMI institute functions, website, etc. The use of specific sources published by them should be judged by who has written them and other RS standards. A simple Misplaced Pages search of "Mises.org" shows its publications have been used as sources on a few hundred articles. If material published by it was not RS, 3/4 of them would have been booted by now. If that's a "walled garden" it's a really big one.

3. Should Austrian/Misean minority views be banned?

• User:Shii in Evidence quotes the WP:Fringe “In a nutshell" box: When the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

I agree. I don’t see any editors arguing that any of the subjects of these biographies have a dominant academic view which must be inserted into every relevant article as the dominant view. I have seen legitimate minority views removed because of accusations of fringe (see my RSN removal and Fringe Evidence).

• The Four Deuces writes in Evidence: ".. this case is about the editing of articles about the LvMI and individuals associated with it, not the use of LvMI sources for economics articles in general."

The issue of inserting Austrian/Misean professors or writers ideas into various economic articles or biographies has lead to a few minor disputes, but I don't believe any have gotten to noticeboards unless they involved BLPs. (However, I have no doubt if Steeletrap and SPECIFICIO weren't busy with BLPs they'd be removing every other mention of Mises.org-related sources they could find.) The primary issue remains adding negative or removing neutral or positive information from BLPs, implicitly or explicitly defended by reference to “fringe”. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• • With regard to the academic discipline of history, please see historical method and philosophy of history. There are certain corollaries between the scientific method and the historical method, so the analogy is not totally irrelevant even when a historical approach is adopted with respect to economics. Moreover, Krugman and DeLong are obviously well versed in that subject matter as well.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc:Experimentation is not the touchstone of scientific method. Rather, it is falsifiable theory and empirically testable statements which characterize the natural and social sciences. Think: Is astronomy a science? Yes. Do we do "experiments" on distant stars? No.

Your stream of statements which present your personal disdain for other editors, e.g. the one directly above, and your inability or unwillingness to differentiate your disparagements and accusations among those whose edits you dislike makes all your accusations here meaningless. If I submit evidence it's likely to focus on the strain of misrepresentation and personal disparagement that has become your hallmark on Misplaced Pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify this further for you, @Carolmooredc:, your personal theories, OR, and soapboxing above, about "economic history", are not not relevant to our task as editors of Misplaced Pages content, which must be based on secondary RS references. Ironically, the Austrian school was founded on its rejection of the Historicism of the other German-speaking economists of the late 19th Certury, (Marx et. al.) I suggest you read that wikilink on the subject for starters. See also, this discussion by von Mises on the Mises Institute website. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages it is less of an error if one misspeaks from time to time on factoids in making a point about policy, like the policy that violating BLP policy using "Fringe" as an excuse is not permitted. Occasional errors can be corrected more easily than long-term biased editing against BLP and other policies by individual editors, evidence of which is a fitting topic for an arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Carolmooredc, as I tried to explain, your entire theory is based on error, so it's not a matter of "misspeaks from time to time". SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of Steeletrap's evidence

Adjwilley pointed out Steeletrap's misrepresentation of a couple sources in her Arbitration evidence, possibly for "shock value". Adjwilley's efforts motivated me to investigate every assertion and I found almost all to be misrepresented, including for shock value, some of which some could see as quite defamatory. Thus the necessity for this long analysis which also fleshes out my bare bones criticism at the "Steeletrap misrepresents Arbitration Evidence" section of my Evidence page. I only quote diffs from the evidence page here.

1. Steeletrap's second paragraph states that the "Mesians...readily concede their fringe status" and are proud of it, quoting Hoppe ("dogmatic and unscientific") and an article mentioning Rothbard's reluctant to publish in mainstream publications. (Neither source uses the word "fringe"; Hoppe also is misrepresented as defining science views of all "Miseans".) In that context, when Steeletrap writes that "Prominent Misesian Walter Block" notes that two economists refer to Austrian economics as a cult, it sounds like Block is proud of it. However, in the article Block, writes against the claim "Austrian economics" is a cult, saying "My goal in writing this present essay is to attack this view as the pernicious and false doctrine that it is."
2. In paragraph two, after noting another economist thinks the Austrian school is a cult, Steeletrap summarizes Block, writing "Austrians could not get published in mainstream journals". This leaves the impression Block thinks it's because "mainstream" journals regard them as a cult. In truth Block writes: "Articles that simply assume a familiarity on the part of the profession with methodological norms and theoretical developments within the Austrian tradition are unlikely to be published;" plus two other related observations which have nothing to do with "fringyness" or "cultishness". And, of course, even if all Austrians or "Mesians" explicitly declared themselves "fringe", it would not affect how Misplaced Pages policy defines or uses the concept.
3. In paragraph three Steeletrap presents several distorted "shock value" allegations. Describing a Rothbard article called "Right wing populism", she mentions Rothbard's 1992 comment on "white nationalist and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's 1991 political platform". However, this was not Duke's white nationalist KKK platform, as Steeletrap infers, it was his 1991 Governors race platform.
4. Re: that platform, Steeletrap asserts that Rothbard wrote there is "'nothing'" in it "which libertarians shouldn't support". However, Rothbard does not write "libertarians", he writes "paleo-libertarians". As Steeletrap well knows, Paleolibertarianism was a short-lived view in the 1990s which most libertarians rejected and which even most of its few adherents rejected after Rothbard died in 1995.
5. Using a Rothbard article as a source, she shares her opinion that he "was a champion of the 'historical revisionism' of Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes (though coyly never mentioned his notorious denialism)". She never presents evidence that Rothbard, a Jew, wrote anything about the Holocaust anywhere. But Steeletrap has managed to call him "coy" in her evidence. As of today there also was no ref for related National Review "guilt by association" paragraph here. The National Review has been hostile to Rothbard for decades.
6. Steeletrap writes: "Then there is the connection of numerous Mises Institute scholars to the League of the South..." She's only found RS evidence that two such professors have had minor associations with it. See articles on NY Times best selling author Professor Thomas Woods and Professor Thomas DiLorenzo.
7. She mentions assertions sourced to a professor's 1995 blog entry attacking Wood's best selling book. Woods allegedly wrote something in a League of the South publication; all blog entry links to the article are broken so we don't know if they were published, when they were published, if they are accurate or in context.
8. Steeletrap writes that the NY Times notes that Woods "has written in opposition to Brown v. Board of Education." Actually, in his book Who Killed the Constitution, published by Random House, Woods called the decision "a dizzying display of judicial imperialism." Libertarians denounce all sorts of Supreme Court decisions - and some denounce the union war against the confederacy - not because they support state government-imposed slavery, racism or segregation, but because they oppose powerful and imperial central governments. Misplaced Pages is careful about using even high quality sources that misrepresent facts.
9. Steeletrap writes that the same NY Times article "quotes a Mises Institute economist as characterizing slavery as 'not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.'” Both are quoting Walter Block out of context. He actually made the comment in a verbal debate whose transcript was published in the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty and titled Walter Block & Richard Epstein Debate on Eminent Domain.

Another point is that Richard’s position implies no right of secession. This, in turn, implies slavery. Look, the only thing wrong with slavery was that you could not quit. If you could quit, it would be no problem. It’s a pretty good deal: You get fed three meals a day, you pick cotton and sing a song—and then the guy pulls out the whip and you would say, “Wait, I quit.” And he says, “No, you can’t quit.” You can’t secede from slavery...

I think Misplaced Pages RS and NPOV norms disallow these sorts of things anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

When you are stridently condemning others for misrepresenting sources, it's probably a bad idea to misrepresent them yourself. The New York Times reporters say Block's comment was made to them in an interview, not the article you cite. Block confirms this, in a post formally accusing the NYT of libel). (He has been unsuccessful in seeking a correction, and the Times stands by its interpretation.)

A lot of your other stuff frankly showcases a lack of ability to understand the objective (logical) meaning of terms. For instance, you believe that my edit (more or less copy and pasted from RS) stating that Rothbard sympathized with 'the 1991 gubernatorial platform of fmr KKK Grand Wizard David Duke' directly implies that Rothbard sympathized with or endorsed the KKK. It does not, as a matter of logic. That sentence indicates that Rothbard was willing to overlook Duke's radical Klan past -- a past which(in the case of Duke) obviously related to his ideological development and racially charged 1991 platform. But it does not indicate that Rothbard sympathized with the Klan. Incidentally, we describe Duke as 'former KKK Grand Wizard' because all the RS which talk about Rothbard's support for his platform describe Duke as 'former KKK Grand Wizard' in their discussion of his 1991 campaign. They understand that, while Duke may have moderated his rhetoric and even his ideology, his racist 1991 platform was influenced by his Klan past. Whether or not you deem it to be fair, we go off of the description of RS.

Your failures in comprehension are further illustrated by your comments on Block and Hoppe. I never said that Block thought the cult characterization was accurate or is proud of it. I said he concedes the fact that the Misesians are regarded as fringe and even cultish by the mainstream, and is proud of their rejection of the mainstream. On Hoppe, I stand by the fact that his saying that all mainstream scholars regard the Misesians as "dogmatic and unscientific" is substantively equivalent to saying that they regard it as 'fringe.' Different words can, in a certain context, share precisely the same meaning. Your constant errors of comprehension make working with you difficult and discouraging. Steeletrap (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The NY Times writes: Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview.

It is clear they are referring to some past quotation in the first case. The interview only was about the Civil Rights Act. They still are taking the "anti-slavery' quote out of context and I'm sure they are doing the same with the Woolworth's quote.

The Block reply is new evidence which I had not been aware of it. In it Block confirms that the "slavery" comment was not in his interview but in a past writing; unfortunately he links to the wrong one, not the correct link that I provided. (Block is opposed to laws against libel, so I guess he couldn't charge "libelous" to get the NY Times' attention. Or maybe the NY Times knew that already.)

As for everything else, I clearly stated in one way or another that you implied such and such which is what many of your edits do. As my Evidence diffs illustrate, you frequently add out-of-context quotes and imply something negative, highly exaggerated or even false. Then there's another tedious, time-consuming fight with you (and usually SPECIFICO) to just get it properly interpreted in context and without negative inference. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc:The purpose of these pages is to provide evidence to the Arbitration Committee so that they can fulfill their role on WP. Your personal opinions concerning the New York Times and your denial that it is WP:RS, are not helpful here. The Committee will note your gratuitous, irrelevant, and undocumented disparagement of me above. It would really help keep these pages on focus if you'd not do that again. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Carol, you are still misrepresenting the Times! Block's links to this source (not your source) and says it was "precisely what I was trying to convey to Mr. Tanenhaus in the several hours of interviews." He is stating that, in the interview, he was trying to convey the arguments h previously made in the linked source; he is NOT stating that the Times got the quote from the link, and indeed clearly indicates they got it from the interview. The Times is even more clear: “One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was ‘not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.'” (emphasis mine) Steeletrap (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Replying to both editors above, I tried to make my reply more brief and accidentally edited out the parts about "why NY Times didn't publish Blocks letter" and “it could be because Block got confused on which article they were using as a quote” and thus only referred to libel issue.

In trying to be NPOV we do note when a usually reliable source misrepresents material, whether it's by error or malice; when the replying subject also makes an error, like assuming the Times is using the wrong article for a quote, things can get even more confused. So in a BLP article or other article where BLP becomes relevant, Misplaced Pages BLP policy would recommend not using the contentious material at all. Similarly, it remains problematic as your “evidence” that Miseans and Block are fringe so it’s OK to put in what others consider WP:undue amounts of negative partisan material about them. Additionally, we are not supposed to have to spend day after day arguing about it over and over. We should not constantly have to take the same issues to WP:BLPN and/or WP:RSN.

And of course, related to SPECIFICO, I do state I am referring to evidence provided. Since I do provide evidence in clear categories, I assume the total picture will become clear to those who read it all and thus I do not have to list every relevant diff for every point I make. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've previously asked you not to make test edits here or to post garbled messages in haste, only to revise them after other editors have read them. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)