Talk:Thomas DiLorenzo

message: Rogue9 - you have attempted to add and revert to the sentence "claiming that the South was right to secede to protect slavery" twice now. This violates WP:NPOV as it espouses an opinion about DiLorenzo's view of the south's secession, suggesting the absurd notion that he favors slavery. In fact, if you open that article you will find that DiLorenzo essentially endorses the opinion on secession of well known abolitionist Lysander Spooner, indicating that contrary to your edit, DiLorenzo does NOT believe protecting slavery was right. You are certainly entitled to your belief as to slavery's role in secession, but please do not use Wikipedia as a platform to make cheap shot misrepresentations of DiLorenzo's position on slavery. Rangerdude 01:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lysander Spooner, in refusing to accept the measures that the South made necessary to effect the abolition of slavery, showed that he was no abolitionist.  Using his reputation as a shield on the matter is utterly pointless against the well-informed; he was manifestly willing to talk, but unwilling to act.  Rogue 9 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Right now the article "Compensated emancipation" is in "see also". However there's no mention of DiLorezno there, and no explanation of the connection here. If anyone is sufficiently familiar with his material we should put it into context.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compensated emancipation 

message: This page doesn't have a single citation to any source other than to organizations with whom he's closely affiliated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, of course, to at least one organization with which he has had an ongoing disagreement (Claremont Inst.). DickClarkMises (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The subject of this article is supported by only three citations, one of which is dead, and another which points to a blog.  Further, notability of academics prescribes a number of criteria for notability, none of which DiLorenzo seems to satisfy.  Significant impact in his field? Doesnt seem like it. Prestigious award or important position? Nope. Editor of important journal? No.  Further, the links offered all trace back to the Mises institute, or weblogs, not a good sign of notability. Bonewah (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Coverage of this topic is wide, independent and meaningful. If you truly think this topic is not notable, you might want to take this to articles for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has a long history going back to September 2004 (almost 5 years), with contributions by many and sundry editors and has been extensively vetted and categorized. Di Lorenzo is a published (Random House) author who has been covered in many independent publications. This topic easily meets WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've worked on this article almost since its inception and, while I disagree with the subject's views, I acknowledge his notability. He has written several books and articles that are significant in their fields. Unfortunately, Google Scholar is no help in establishing how frequently he's cited because of other scholars with similar names. But there are plenty of citations to his works. {Notability} is better used for new articles. If there's a serious question about the notability of the subject then an AFD would be more appropriate.   Will Beback  talk   22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability requires verifiable evidence, the mere fact that a number of editors have worked on it does not establish notability. Perhaps {importance} would be a better tag, but this is the first ive heard that {notability} is for new articles.  As for an AFD, i thought it would be better if editors here were given a chance to address my concerns before doing and AfD. Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to take this to WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like that? You dont want to even try and work these issues out? Bonewah (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has its lacks, but topic notability is not one of them, the article text establishes this. If you truly think this topic is not notable, much wider input can be had at AfD and there is nothing untowards about bringing this up there in good faith. Discussions at AfD often wind up helping article content, even if the outcome is a keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Im not going to do an AfD until other editors have had a chance to work out the issues here. On that note, would you mind if I put the {notability} or {importance} tag back on? Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no consensus to place those tags. This article has been up for almost 5 years, has a deep contrib history, the subject is a widely published and cited author. Please wait for further input here (from other editors) or take it to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is contrary to the rules of tagging.  Ive stated my reasons for wanting to tag this article and I dont believe you have either refuted my arguments or offered any real proof of the subject's notability, google hits not withstanding. Having said that, I wont re-add them, even though i dont believe consensus is necessary to add a tag.Bonewah (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I can't believe there is no section about how controversial this guy is, and that this article treats him like a straight-up academic. He's a straight up neo-confederate successionist.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.110.158 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a bizarre statement. Since when is someone not an academic if his work is controversial? He's as academic as any other economist or historian. All you have to do is attend or watch his Youtube lectues or read his articles on LvMI and Lew Rockewell's site. He's researching an area that has been neglected for centuries. Isn't Chmosky's or Krugman's work controversial? Or is it only that someone who is a free-marketeer gets to be controversial? Advocating for the right of secession is only following the Founding Fathers. Sure a "criticism" section may be appropriate, but not because he advocates secession, but because his positions or works aren't accepted by mainstream academics (State apologists).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.220 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He's "controversial" because he blatantly makes stuff up and attempts to connect unrelated subjects to his own personal hobbyhorse of glorifying the Confederate rebellion. He advocates insupportable positions from which he draws blatantly false conclusions (on more than Civil War history, I might add), and depends for his notability on fanning ideology and engaging in revisionism (which he follows by accusing serious researchers of being revisionist) rather than conducting unbiased scholarly research, to the point where in the academy he is ignored more often than time is wasted on criticizing him. Rogue 9 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: At this diff SPECIFICO removes the italiced section from this sentence with this ref:
::In the same vein, DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending the right of these states to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner.REF: "An Abolitionist Defends the South," LewRockwell.com October 20, 2004]
The edit summary reads:
:: We need an independent RS reference in order to state that mainstream views Prof. DiLorenzo's theories to parallel Spooner's.
*If a DiLorenzo primary source article is good enough to say DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of secession of CSA, it's good enough to say DiLorenzo talks about Spooner's views, especially since most of the article details Spooner's views as the only abolitionist to support CSA secession, with several references mentioned.
*Obviously it would be helpful to get a secondary source that has brought up both topics.
*Lorenzo also discusses Spooner in this book.  
It is absurd to pillory the guy for paragraph after paragraph and not discuss his views. User:Carolmooredc  talk  18:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: DiLorenzo primary source on Spooner's views

message: :Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Temporary_removal_of_BLP_violating_material.  Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: BLPN posting on this matter

message: As I wrote at WP:BLPN: I find the following disturbing. At this diff, you removed Lorenzo's understanding of why he was listed on League of South website - because he had done a few previously mentioned lectures 13 years before. Your edit summary reads: (Remove BLP violation. This asserts that League of South does not update their website and posts misinformation, smearing League of South for alleged dishonesty and/or incoompetence.) To me this expresses contempt for the whole concept of BLP. DiLorenzo's understanding regarding the listing belongs in the article, in one way or another, and just leaving the implication he is a liar recently associated with it is extremely problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected at this diff with more info, better order and reported at BLPN. Also reported both SPECIFICO and Steeletrap's evidences of contempt for BLPs and BLP policy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of DiLorenzo explanation

message: Per http://www.salarylist.com/company/Ludwig-Von-Mises-Institute-Salary.htm, DiLorenzo earns 60k a year for his work as a Mises Senior Fellow (for purposes of comparison, that's more than the median D1 college football coach makes). The definition of an employer is someone who pays another person/people to do things for her or him. That describes the relationship between Llewellyn and Lorenzo. Steeletrap (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please. I doubt that is in anyway a WP:RS since looks like just a commercial site to sell ads that throws stuff up there. Even if it was info is six years old and probably not accurate. There probably are a few actual employees that applies to but I doubt all of them.  Here's a relevant one: http://www.salarylist.com/q/Southern-Poverty-Law-Center-Salary.htm Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that how all commercial websites fund themselves? Ever look at New York Times or Wall Street Journal websites?  We don't yet have enough information to decide whether that site is RS, but we do have a clue to track down their source to see whether there is RS disclosure or reporting of the remuneration of Mises Institute fellows and teachers.  It would be surprising if men the caliber of the Mises Institute Faculty would be donating their time and effort for free.  We need to follow up on this lead, which could be a breakthrough toward easing your concern about stating that vMI compensates its affiliated scholars. I clicked the link you provided for the SPLC, but there was no salary data available for them. Did you find the salary data for a SPLC position?  What was the job title. Thanks.   SPECIFICO talk  00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: A fellow at LvMI is not an employee.  The employer-employee relationship is not just that one person provides paid work for another.  See for example the IRS's "Independent Contractor (Self-Employed) or Employee?"  An employee typically has a workplace provided by the employer, set hours, set holidays and sick days, notice period and severance pay, overtime, supervision and performance goals.  TFD (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably correct, although we would need to find RS for any of these details.  I have had employees work for me on staff with a W-2 who were 1 day a week or irregular hours but still considered an employee in that sense.  If indeed the Fellows turn out to be contractors in the US tax sense, then vMI would be more like their client or sponsor. The appropriate statement would come from the RS description of the relationship.  SPECIFICO talk  02:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus is on you to show that they are employees.  Your casual labor example is not helpful because it clearly meets the IRS criteria for employees.  Incidentally, other countries define employees in a manner similar to the U.S.  TFD (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying they're employees. I removed the text and rewrote it. I'm just saying we need to find RS which will tell us the facts concerning their compensation scheme and terms of affiliation.  SPECIFICO talk  03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Employer is appropriate term for LvMI

message: See Talk:Thomas_Woods#Criticism_and_controversy started by another editor regarding a similar "League of the South" section in the Woods' article. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and controversy

message: At this diff removal of info with edit summary "standard reading for economists". Re reading, I actually just followed the previous editors lead, but now looking more closely at the source he said he was introduced to Austrian economics in his first semester in graduate school, which really is all that might need noting. However, the removing editor did not give an explanation for removing While completing his doctorate at Virginia Tech, he studied under Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan. Later he met Murray Rothbard and was influenced by Rothbard’s use of a number of academic disciplines in his “relentless pursuit of truth”. both ref'd by his memoir. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 06:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Economics grad students at VT all study under Tullock and Buchanan, so I don't see what's notable about it. Do we have any reliable sources which suggest notability? As for the Rothbard mention, it was a poor fit to begin with and now there doesn't seem to be any way to integrate it with this section. If you think it's important -- and I don't -- then find someplace else to put it. MilesMoney (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I get more relevant info from other sources I'll figure out the best place for influences. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of influences

message: This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... he has produced multiple notable books (albeit revisionist), articles, and has positions of importance with think tanks, also, notable controversy with Ron Paul/Lacy Clay committee hearing.  -- – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thomas DiLorenzo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517160026/http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/Spring2002/krannawitter.html to http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/Spring2002/krannawitter.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified