Talk:Ralph Raico

message: A high percentage of this article is on the New Individualist Review.  Perhaps there should be an NIR page and this material moved there?  DC Wallah 10:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material on New Individualist Review 

message: This page doesn't have a single citation to any source other than to organizations with whom he's closely affiliated. Binarybits (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: When is he born?--41.15.137.163 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: This search of "His dissertation was entitled" is used in dozens of articles.  And I'm sure most use a primary source. There is nothing BLP violating about that information so tagging it for a secondary reference is the usual thing to do. And then I explain why it isn't necessary here. User:Carolmooredc  talk  03:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lost. What point are you trying to make? That we should mention the title of the dissertation? Did it change the world or something? - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to share diff. The point is, when one constantly sees deletion of anything that gives an Austrian economist a bit of credibility, one cannot really trust that the deletion is valid. Seeing that all those other people have their disserations mentioned makes me question why it was removed. User:Carolmooredc  talk  17:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. But since he was a professor, how does the theme of his PhD thesis add to his credibility? He's moved on a bit since then. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has moved on too. The thesis is simply listed in the publications, with a WorldCat number, and mention is made that it served as a basis for his book. If the book (or thesis) has been cited by others, then more mention is warranted. But for now I don't see what the issue is for this discussion. As we have citations for the thesis & book, interested readers can track the publications down as they wish. – S. Rich (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that it is in the list of publications (although it was the book that was published, not the thesis). Like you, I'm still not really any wiser regarding the reason for opening this thread. I'll happily ignore it. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dissertation entitled etc" in Wiki articles

message: The juxtaposition of a mention of Raico's teenage activities with a statement cited to a different source which states that Rothbard influenced Raico in the context of a specific later controversy about Buckley and the National Review is SYNTHy. Even aside from the SYNTH it misrepresents the statement in the second source by not relating it to the specific events to which the cited source applies.  Other editors may disagree with my concern, but my reversion and reason stated in the edit summary, and repeated again here, should be addressed on the talk page.  I would like to ask the editor who undid my reversion to please self-revert and let's follow BRD and discuss the pros and cons here on talk.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO talk  17:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are nitpicking. I'll tweak for now. Put a synth tag on it if you don't like it. I'll add stuff about his involvement in the circle bastiat with rothbard and others, though if I name them I know their articles will then get the treatment. User:Carolmooredc  talk  17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great if you develop a new section based on the second source, but it's not a good idea to undo an ordinary reversion and dismiss the concern of the editor who reverted.  I have no further comment but I'll again ask you to follow BRD and undo your reversal of my edit.  By all means use the source in a straightforward way as appropriate elsewhere in the article. Please undo.  Thank you.  SPECIFICO talk  17:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to dig through to see who started this but since the point is contested I would advise that it is removed for now. The burden is on the person who adds information and saying that you're going to do something later is not good enough - it might never happen, for a variety of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it, but I do contest SPECIFICOS  edit summary: "The comment from a second source about Rothbard's influence on Raico's thinking refers to a different context." Source says that Raico "had been strongly influenced" - and then says how he borrowed something from Rothbard. It doesn't say that he only was influenced by Rothbard in replying to Friedman. So it's not just nitpicking, it is wrong. User:Carolmooredc  talk  17:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you added it recently then you definitely need to BRD. Just because you think t'other is wrong doesn't mean that everyone else does. We're a community based on consensus, not a banana republic. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added diff of change I made here. Sorry if that was not clear. But I am saying that his interpretation is wrong and we should await his response of why it is right, if he chooses to make one. User:Carolmooredc  talk  19:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rothbard "Great Influence" 

message: Brian Doherty is very questionable as a reliable source, as an anarcho-capitalist fellow traveler with a B.A. in Journalism, he is unreliable as a historian (the book cited is a history text of libertarianism). Otherwise, we see the usual problem: Hagiographies from Coworkers at the Mises Institute and Independent Institute. (The Doherty material and the co-workers source the entire article, except for a cursory mention on a couple pages of one RS. (The author's children also receive a mention; are they notable by this standard?) Steeletrap (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally a book by a journalist, published by a commercial publisher, would be considered reliable for claims of fact: who worked where when, that sort of thing. It isn't the gold standard, but I wouldn't call it any more "questionable" than average -- it's better than a lot of what gets cited on Wikipedia. If the article contains opinions or assessments sourced to him, then those can be qualified as his opinions. If the facts are disputed among different sources, then that needs to be handled case-by-case. In other words, business as usual. If the concern is notability, it can always be taken to WP:AFD to get outside opinions. --RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article largely sourced by Co-workers, Court 'historian'

message: Since this happened at two articles this week with same editor removing, seemed WP:RSN better than having same round and round discussion on two talk pages.  See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_patents_as_reliable_sources. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 21:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is patently absurd.  SPECIFICO talk  21:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We have one uninvolved opinion so far which says RS looks good and asks SPECIFICO for his objections. He hasn't answered. Obviously, other material needs to be entered, per another uninvolved editors' question, but the issue is keeping this info in. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: To WP:RSN on removal of material from institute

message: Dr. Raico's degrees are mentioned, but were his degrees in economics? Entry doesn't say. 04:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees 

message: The page does need to be updated.  Blck Blk (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been updated to reflect his death. If you have a reliable source that has more specific details (such as the date he died or how), you can mention it here or add the details yourself. So far what I've seen says "he has died" or something similar, but no specifics not even the "today" part. --RL0919 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Died today 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ralph Raico. 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/20121114103318/http://fff.org/aboutUs/bios/rxr.asp to http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/rxr.asp
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) 05:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified