Talk:Robert P. Murphy

message: I removed the vanity warning since I, not Bob Murphy, created this Wikipedia article about Murphy, an arguably notable economist and Libertarian theorist. DickClarkMises 06:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concern. The "inflation prediction" (we can't say incorrect, because that's a non-neutral fact) and his Lew Rockwell dot come articles are all that come up on Google. Steeletrap (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

text: He is one of the most popular/visible Austrian/Ancap speakers in the world. He's a regular on the Tom Woods Show, probably the most widely consumed piece of media regarding Ancap, and is co-host of the second most widely viewed show, Contra Krugman.  It may be a small community, but that does not make it any less relevant to the current political ecosystem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity tag

message: Does anyone disagree with me at this point that we should consider AfD for this article.  It barely passes any semblance of muster.  Has this been discussed previously? I note that  Mises affiliate DickClarkMises called Murphy "arguably notable" seven years ago and I don't see anything in the article that clearly establishes his notability.  Thoughts?  SPECIFICO talk  00:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concern. The "inflation prediction" (we can't say incorrect, because that's a non-neutral fact) and his Lew Rockwell dot come articles are all that come up on Google. Steeletrap (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

text: He is one of the most popular/visible Austrian/Ancap speakers in the world. He's a regular on the Tom Woods Show, probably the most widely consumed piece of media regarding Ancap, and is co-host of the second most widely viewed show, Contra Krugman.  It may be a small community, but that does not make it any less relevant to the current political ecosystem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking a fresh look

message: Should a section be included regarding his debate challenge to Paul Krugman? I'm happy to write the section, but being a new to Wikipedia, I'm opening this for discussion before adding. Jtropeano (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krugman Debate 

message: Hey. I know the OR isn't welcomed, but don't you think an illustration of how badly Murphy lost the bet (the change CPI would've had to have been more than 150% greater than it was in the highest year of change for him to have one) is relevant? (Murphy himself concedes this, btw). Steeletrap (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that he conceded loosing. By how much (whether badly or by a hair) is not for us to judge. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey Srich, I'm not sure what you mean. Murphy predicted 10% or more inflation and it never hit even 4%. I agree that whether that's "big" or "close" loss is for others to judge (though (and this is me speaking in a common-sense, unencyclopedic fashion :) )for those acquainted with economics, it's going to sound like a 41-3 football game). But isn't listing (without commentary) that CPI ended up being lower than 4% in all years, as cited by Murphy, relevant to the bet? Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In this regard we are getting into WP:SYN. We cannot take fact A (the terms of their bet), and fact B (what we perceive as to the win/lose determining parameters of their bet), and reach conclusion C (that the bet was lost by a big or small margin). The only real point (and it really is a trivial one because economists and prophets are wrong at least half the time in these matters) is that the bet was made, with one side "winning" and the other "losing".  Going beyond that is ad hominem, which these guys (Murphy et al) already do too much. If Murphy (or another RS) had said "Yup, I lost badly by 10% (or whatever)", then we could put that sort of statement in. – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

text:  Oh I fully agree that C -- which contains a value judgment about how "bad" (or "close") the loss was -- is inappropriate. I am just wondering why, bereft of any commentary on how "badly" (or closely) he lost the bet, we can't plainly list the actual CPI data from that period (which Murphy begrudgingly cited). Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murphy's Losing the Bet 

message: Srich, I think that bit about stockpiling metals should remain in the article. Reason: Murphy was employed as an investment analyst at Laffer & Co. so this advice continues a thread in his work.  Please consider re-inserting.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if secondary sources criticized him for this COI advice that would worthwhile. But the OR/SYN bogeyman lurks otherwise. (I agree that it was lousy advice. Benjamin Graham in The Intelligent Investor critized gold buying long ago! – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying to juxtapose them to insinuate a conclusion, just that investment advice is part of his career and not irrelevant to his bio.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If he were giving advice at Laffer to invest in metals, and seemed to continue to do so post-Laffer, and we had RS commenting on this, the particular advice (pre/during/post Laffer) might be relevant to fill out his bio. E.g., we'd learn if he were a gold-bug, temporary gold-bug, etc.. But where's there a connection to gold-bug advice in the criticism section? Compare, there are other ways to fight inflation like real estate, TIPS, high-yield dividend stocks, etc (or so I've heard). Maybe he commented on these vehicles. Or should we be linking :Gold as an investment as part of the section or article? Until better RS comes in, I think the gold stuff is off-topic. – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think the gold is on-topic regardless of the other content. It relates to his world view as an economist.  Let's see what others have to say.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with SPECIFICO's comments here, and also think that his reference to buying "emergency stockpiles" of gold and silver is material to the context (i.e. his prediction of hyperinflation (or, to be charitable, double-digit inflation.) His tone in the TAC article is, it should be noted, quite alarmist and vaguely conspiratorial. Steeletrap (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stockpile Metals 

message: Most (all?) of this section's claims appear to be partly or entirely normative, e.g. Murphy's views that law should be privatized and that Leftist are "cynical, bitter people." "Economics" is a social science, and as such is positive rather than normative. Thus I changed "economic beliefs" to "Moral and Political Beliefs." Someone interested in improving this article should note some value-free contributions Murphy has made to economic theory (as opposed to paraphrasing his normative defense of anarcho-capitalism). Steeletrap (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Beliefs 

message: @Srich - I checked your statement that Steele's edit changed a version which had remained stable for six months.  That is not true. In fact the stable version was "incorrect inflation prediction" and the Bold edit was DGG's on Oct. 1, 2013.  Steele then did her revert, and you should have gone to talk for discussion rather than re-inserting DGG's version.  You may not like me to remind you of this, but it's really important to be accurate in your statements here -- particularly if they are bundled with little "reminders" about Sanctions.  If other editors feel that they need to check your statements of straightforward facts such as edit histories it wastes a lot of editor time and attention and dilutes the collaboration we are trying to sustain here.  Please reflect.  SPECIFICO talk  01:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My apology. I was thinking of the discussion that occurred 6 months ago. (I struck the 6 months and made the correction.) And thank you for pointing out that DGG, an administrator, made the change. All the more reason to revert. I thank you, Steeletrap, for having done so. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You needn't apologize -- just try not to repeat this.  It is very costly to the Project.  SPECIFICO talk  02:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should re-revert. Respectfully, whether or not Dgg is an admin, I think his understanding of neutrality is mistaken. Neutrality means presenting factually accurate information without commentary, and in a manner represented by RS; "incorrect" is an empirical fact (not an opinion, or not a "judgment" unless by "judgment" you mean the objective sense in which one "judges" that one and one make two), and it's the "incorrectness" that RS are focusing on. No one would care about his economic predictions if he hadn't gotten them so crashingly wrong. Steeletrap (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-set this to Steele's revert, where she was clearly within the BRD parameters, and before Srich's erroneous undo.  SPECIFICO talk  02:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

text:  Correct, the only notable aspect of Murphy's predictions is that they were spectacularly wrong and that he promoted them with an untoward degree of certainty.  RS supports this.  SPECIFICO talk  02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresenting edit history

message: These edits are abundantly well-sourced and accepted without objection by most editors on this page. Deleting it wholesale is unacceptable without significant discussion and attempt to reach consensus. Discussions about the neutrality of the edits are welcome, though they strike me as straight-forward paraphrases of claims made in the sources. Steeletrap (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's silly to have this section at all because we have NOT come to the end of the Obama presidency and therefore his prediction may yet come true.  Section should be removed as irrelevant. Put it back when it doesn't come true as of January 20, 2017. User:Carolmooredc  talk  05:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If all Murphy did was make a prediction about what is still in the future, you might have a point. However, our sources show that he's been making this same prediction for years, even though it's never shown any signs of coming true. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale deletion of criticism of predictions section

message: User:DickClarkMises worked from 2004 to 2007 at the Institute where Murphy is adjunct scholar (he stated this a few months ago on this talk page after another user asked him about a Mises Institute video in which his wiki editing of Mises articles on Wikipedia and on the Institute's wiki were celebrated 1). He created this page (2) and has contributed more edits to it than any other user (3). Shouldn't we take note of this extreme WP:COI origin in evaluating the page's current contents, and its justification for existence? Steeletrap (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few of the Mises Institute related persons who are borderline for notability.  Soto is another example.  Some, like Hulsmann have had their WP articles deleted.  Murphy is a strange case because he hasn't really had much visibility even at Mises Institute.  He's written some popular books but nothing even in the vMI tradition of speculative thought.  Jury is out on him and this article.  SPECIFICO talk  05:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Page created by co-worker at Murphy's Institute

message: Please see The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism for more info. Steeletrap (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD on Murphy's book

message: First of all the quote from the interview is too long, but the more important thing is the original intro gave the impression that somehow he was defending slavery in the free market. We certainly do not want to do that under WP:BLP - NPOV, now do we? And leaving out the first paragraph about how slavery would fail in a free market also can help create that false impression. And we certainly do not want to do that do we? Also those Ellipsis give the impression you've left something out that might be critical. In fact those are new paragraphs. User:Carolmooredc  talk  16:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no presumption of the kind with ellipses, in fact it's the opposite.  Ellipses take the place of inessential content or awkward grammatical structure in order to sustain the train of thought.  All aboard!!  SPECIFICO talk  17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:MOS#Ellipses doesn't say anything about using them to denote a new paragraph. You can ask at the talk page of the guideline if you like. User:Carolmooredc  talk  00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing, once the paragraph becomes accurate, instead of inferring something stinky, Steeletrap remove it as not WP:RS! Actually an interview would be one of the few things it would be RS for. I also noticed that there used to be good reviews of Murphy's book. There all gone now. It's so easy to document all that deletion of RS material I'm always complaining about. User:Carolmooredc  talk  03:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carol, do you believe Front Page Magazine is an RS? Steeletrap (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I usually check with WP:RSN to see what people say in past discussions about a source such as FrontPage Magazine. A typical statement was "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. " As I say above, an interview where a person only expresses their own views on political issues without commenting on third parties is that sort of thing. But we really don't need to go to WP:RSN to get that standard practice explained to you by uninvolved editors, do we? Also, the topic should be cut down to a short paragraph in a "views" section, with other views, none of which really need sectioning, especially with those absurdly blaring POV section headers . User:Carolmooredc  talk  16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Making slavery quoting NPOV per WP:BLP

message: Material referenced by this citation: , has been removed as a "blog". This is not the case. The author is a CNBC editor and the reference is a WP:NEWSBLOG, which is distinct from personal or group blogs. It qualifies as RS.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this can be added. But the article is really more about attempts to "shame" Krugman than the person behind them. A sentence should be sufficient. Steeletrap (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. When we have opinion pieces, the guidance makes clear that we attribute the opinion to the writer.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNBC [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] 

message: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_P._Murphy_re:_Paul_Krugman_quote. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, at BLPN Steeletrap revealed another ref where Krugman actually mentions Murphy and I found an even earlier one, so those two refs should be more than enough to make a nice little paragraph. Krugman seems quite taken with the guy; must be the cute little dimple on his chin. Working on it as part of views. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Now at BLPN

message: :Better late than never, here are the two NY Times refs where Krugman actually mentions Murphy which are useable. Let's review them again for where and how.
*Krugman, Great Leaps Backward, January 19, 2011
*Krugman, On Not Learning, Continued, December 31, 2012  
* And possibly something from this as part of ongoing debate: Murphy, Heads Krugman Wins, Tails ‘Austerity’ Loses, American Conservative, May 23, 2013	
Thoughts? Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant references to Krugman/Murphy

message: Despite all the discussion on this talk page and WP:BLPN showing the poor sourcing of this information, Steeletrap has reverted it back again here.  And when was DeLong's blog found to be RS??  And of course ignoring the real WP:RS above. Considering DeLong has come up so many times before, it's really time to go to WP:RSN with it. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting to rejected versions again?

message: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brad_DeLong_blog_RS.3F. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RSN discussion on DeLong

message: *Thanks to Binksternet at this diff. Krugman properly refers to DeLong (a WP:RS commenting on a Non-WP:RS) and similarly second Krugman article (though I'm just going from memory; will have to look again if any disagreement).  Thoughts?
*Another editor at WP:RSN pointed out we should make sure that the first paragraph of Double-digit inflation predictions quoting Murphy is accurate. And I think we could include a few substantive words of Murphy's reply if they accurately reflect his main point. But issues for another day. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 21:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see User:Steeletrap reverted Binksternet's version without discussing it here or at WP:RSN. Thanks to SRich for reverting it back. Steeletrap, please read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your reverting my version and Binksternet's similar one despite all the discussion you didn't bother to engage in is the definition of WP:Edit Warring. Thanks. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 02:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 1/16/14 version much better

message: WP:RSN discussion certainly found problems with use of DeLong. I tried to fix by adding two good Krugman sources above.
*the editor removed the the 2011 Krugman comment on Murphy's views. I re-added it in a separate section with general description of Murphy's response, as opposed to point by point one people can read if they choose.
*the editor now has a section where Murphy's self-published blog is mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second and Krugman comments on them last. SPS blog entries lead and frame a discussion. That's really building a POV argument on SPS, not proper use of sources.
*It's a BLP probelm cause it emphasizes a silly bet and ridicule of Murphy for losing the bet, not serious economic issues which serious readers and editors would want to do. 
*finally, of course, Murphy will have to be quoted in response in equal weight to the accusations on inflation, when I get a chance. I guess Murphy must go to the grocery store every week to have those opinions on inflation.  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New edits lead with SPS

message: At this diff editor removes specific language describing what Murphy discussed at congress and the reference for each item, replacing them with more vague language and throwing all the refs at the end. This is supposed to be an informational encyclopedia. Why make it so vague and remove refs from each issue ref'd? Also I'm pretty sure I've seen mentions of at least two of these elsewhere in acceptable RS, so feel free to add an "additional sources" tag as a reminder. Or even find and them :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that some of the material had been removed with a "so what, lots of people testify" type comment, the change serves as a compromise which does provide encyclopedic information without undue emphasis. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bad compromise and should be reverted. A good one is finding more info. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacing specific/sourced info with vague/confusingly sourced info

message: This edit inserts, among other misrepresentations, a reference to "inflation of the money supply" which is not stated by Krugman.  I'm not going to touch this for now, but I urge any editor who's watching this page to examine this edit consider whether to revert it or to rewrite it to conform to the source material.  SPECIFICO talk  16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloppy errors can be corrected. AGF and don't call it a "misrepresentation". Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, don't read in any more than what I said. It's not a personal remark.  The text misrepresents the source and therefore failed verification.  It needs to be fixed, as does the entire edit, either by you or any other editor. I don't wish to be further involved here at present. Thanks.  SPECIFICO talk  20:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of Krugman blog statement 

message: I know User:Steeletrap knows what edit warring is and I don't have to leave a user talk page warning. Another editor already left that message in an edit summary. This revert is unacceptable:  and already countered above is it's edit summary  mv Paul Krugman's criticism of ABCT which has nothing to do with Murphy. (Murphy mentioned in cursory fashion as providing well-written summary of ABCT, but not subject of article))
Also this edit with edit summary  restoring complementary primary sources (this complements RS discussion of Murphy's erroneous predictions)) was edit warring after two editors removed it as UNDUE detail from primary source. Steeltrap never opened a discussion on this. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Carol. You're right and I concede error. I do think those who are reverting did so with no rationale whatseover on their edit summaries, but I shouldn't be violating BRD on such a sensitive article. Steeletrap (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Listing my reverts momentarily with edit summaries. Please review WP:BLP/NPOV/Primary sources. 
* 1 (remove cherry picked WP:OR/synth from primary source));
* 2, remove cherry picked quote from primary source; doubtless not main point of interview and even if makes readers more sympathetic to him, questionable entry; explain at talk) Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted more primary sourced/cherry-picked/pov edits

message: First, at this revert 3 I wrote (again, relying on primary sources to tell own POV story after removing section where Secondary source tells the story;s please review BLP/NPOV/Primary Source policie)
OK, I mistook it for a rewrite of the removed section on Capitol Theory above. Then reviewing it I saw it was a whole new topic with the CNBC RS. However, this is part of the whole Krugman vs. Murphy issue which should include all three stories: 
*inflation prediction (where again has been added too much primary sourced material)
*Capitol theory 
*invitation to a debate (which should lead with CNBC description).  It should not stuck in life and work as if it was irrelevant to the below which is sloppy editing. 
Splitting up two stories (inflation and debate invite) and removing one (capitol theory) is just incredibly POV. I'll rewrite it. And hopefully I'll get a chance to add other WP:RS info was working on today. Whether it needs to be part of a Murphy vs. Krugman section is another issue for another day. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol, your statement above is very muddled and unhelpful. Can you please try to restate it in a clear and concise fashion? Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Krugman debate belongs after other Krugman material

message: Re: This diff
*Brought this to BLPN since still haven't had a clear opinion from third parties Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Synth_to_infer_RS_mentions_individual_by_name.3F.3F
*Chronology: Why revert the Chronology so not clear that Krugman criticizes Murphy two days in a row and that the call to debate is a reaction to that? That's just obsfucating issues...
*Removal of "Capitol theory" section at this diff with edit summary "(Murphy mentioned in cursory fashion as providing well-written summary of ABCT, but not subject of article))".  Murphy wasn't subject of other two either, especially the one where Krugman doesn't name him, so this seems like a bogus rationale. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting Krugman section right

message: I am puzzled by the claim, sourced to bios and other sources presumably written by Murphy, that he sells economic forecasts in his role as consultant.   Presumably a "forecast" is expressed as a quantitative estimate, yet as a Misesian Austrian economist, Murphy eschews quantitative and empirical methods.  Do we have any secondary reference which describes Murphy as a forecaster?   SPECIFICO talk  03:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Murphy's predictions are often quantitative (e.g. double digit inflation). His means of getting to them are, however, strictly qualitative. He, 4H, Gary North, Llewellyn and the rest claim economics can be derived solely from the armchair and through deductive reasoning. Every important mathematicians/logicians (read: actual experts in priori/deductive reasoning) in the last 100 years disagrees with them on this. Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you assume they all have exactly the same viewpoints on everything doesn't mean it's true. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 04:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carol, I recommend you watch the "Austrian versus Chicago School" Youtube debate, featuring Murphy and David Friedman. He certainly rejects evidence in econ. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2RByG_vutE Steeletrap (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

text:   Whether it's "true" is irrelevant.  WP represents sources according to their incidence in the literature.  Murphy could be the Oracle of Delphi but if he is the only one to follow his methods or reach his conclusions, then in WP terms it is not mainstream.  SPECIFICO talk  04:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Astrologists make forecasts, and they reject the empirical method.  I am inclined to accept that he makes forecasts and any questions about the methodology should be addressed in articles about Austrian economics.  TFD (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious Claim ? 

message: I have no objection to keeping this, and disagree with SPECIFICO's attempts to remove. It doesn't appear to be too notable but can fall under WP:Aboutself. Steeletrap (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not doubting that he did testify, but we have no secondary RS which states it was of any significance or public interest or note.  SPECIFICO talk  04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in my travels I did notice his testimony was mentioned in a couple RS and even criticized by an environmental organization or two. Probably saved ref somewhere, just haven't had time/energy to add info. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 14:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly a month later: Has anyone found secondary RS discussion which establishes the encyclopedic importance of Murphy's testimony on behalf of his employer?  SPECIFICO talk  02:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional testimony

message: I am an academic economist from Alabama. I have had dealings with the Mises Institute before and am familiar with their work and "heterodox" economics methodology.
It seems to me that there is a sustained effort on the Wiki to remove information about Mises Institute scholars that tends to show that they are outside the mainstream. I have re-added the removed information to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.57.24 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics for a background on some of the problems encountered.  The problem with this and many other articles about LvMI writers is that there is scant reference to them in reliable secondary sources to write anything beyond a stub.  Without those we cannot determine what is important about their views and policy prevents us from overreliance on primary source, i.e., their writings.  Most Americans believe in creation, which is a more extreme position than Robert P. Murphy holds.  Are we going to add evolution sections to every U.S. biography?  TFD (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense. Sorry, I'm new here and didn't know that policy prohibited primary sources. GabeAuburn (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are not prohibited, but their use is limited per WP:PRIMARY.  TFD (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What's Going on With Mises Institute Related Pages

message: This section has multiple issues.  Currently, it constitutes like 40-50% of the article, but arises from only a few incidents.  It also reads more as an essay on why he was wrong than an encyclopedic article on the interactions.  I'm going to slim it down.  Squatch347 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous Inflation Prediction Section