Talk:Thomas DiLorenzo#DiLorenzo primary source issues again

I can see that there was a discussion last week about the Books section but it seemed to deterioratye very quickly. From the early sparring, it looks like Carolmooredc favoured a large section while SRich did not. In this instance, Carolmoore is wrong: the two books mentioned both have their own articles and it is not common practice to have such extensive commentary elsewhere (ie: here) in such circumstances. The section should simply list his notable publications, linked as appropriate and with an ISBN that acts as verification. No need for book reviews to be cited etc. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:I see two sections above on books but I think where I ended up at end was that we need better sourcing for his "Life and works" section and that books could be integrated into life and work with one paragraph each; though I may have not said the latter. (And there are the unresolved issues about removal of praise and too much criticism.) Hopefully soon I can get back to my researching.

:Any thoughts on Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Removal_of_BLP_questionable_material whether DiLorenzo's personal memoir on LewRockwell.com can be used to convey negative information about individuals who could be easily identifiable - especially in their home towns, now that I think of it - given the info he provides? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::On the other hand as I am right now sourcing info on his academic career to add, I am finding a lot more on his books, especially those two. Most of it should go into the articles themselves, of course. Since many articles have books sections with paragraphs about books that do have articles (as well as others with out them), how much info on how many books do you think should be in such a section to qualify it for a "Books" section? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

At [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_DiLorenzo&diff=584635835&oldid=584554549 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)

: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)

::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)

At this Bold edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_DiLorenzo&diff=next&oldid=600072615] (which lacked an edit summary) "examined" was changed to "defended". I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_DiLorenzo&diff=next&oldid=600072706 Reverted] back to "examined" and modified the description a bit. Justification was the usage of a neutral term to say what DiLorenzo did. At this stage (without Discussion) we [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_DiLorenzo&diff=next&oldid=600093975 see] "defended" restored. Well, while DiLorenzo is "defending" the League, he is doing so in the context of what he calls Neoconservative criticisms of the League. In any event, this last sentence of the section, whether it uses "defended the League" or "examined criticism of the League", is unacceptable SYNTH. The section is titled "Involvement". Thus, the 2005 LewRockwell.com piece serves to imply that DiLorenzo is involved with the League because he wrote an article about neocon criticisms of the League. (The piece does not mention any involvement with the League.) With this in mind, the last sentence should be discarded. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:Per WP:BLP we use the most neutral language, not the most charged language, especially in interpreting primary sources. Please just revert back to most neutral language per Wikipedia:BLP#Tone and take the offenders to WP:BLPN were I'll be happy to ask an Admin to sanction the offender(s) under WP:AEGS. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::"Neutral language" is not the basic issue. The basic problem is the inclusion of the 2005 article to imply an "involvement" of DiLorenzo with the League. Once this issue is resolved, the next issue is the neutrality of the language. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::OK, you should say so. First time I remember hearing that argument in all these past (deja vu) discussions: Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Undue_section; Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#List_of_BLP_problems_in_article; Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Lacy_Clay_sub-committee_hearing_comments; Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#Criticism_and_controversy.

:::Please note the last section addresses the title issue generally. The material just should be integrated chronologically as it happened without a section header characterizing it. Or at most it should be DiLorenzo and League of the South and then presented in chrono order. Once against editors have presented material as argumentative synthesis instead of neutral biographical chronology. So I'll put back your synth tag. Though {{Synthesis|date=March 2014}} or {{Criticism section|date=March 2014}} also could be applied. (See the latter was removed after editors refused to discuss the issue at this and another article, against policy.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Your statement is a bit confusing. The links may refer to past discussions, but I cannot discern how they help here. But I do think the issue has been narrowed. E.g., if we simply title the section "DiL & LoftheS" (avoiding the problematic "involvement" heading) and put the material in order (as you suggest), we can avoid the SYNTH problem. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Go for it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Only 26 hours of discussion so far. Let's see what others have to say. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following as a re-write for the section:

==DiLorenzo and the League of the South==

In a 2005 LewRockwell.com article, DiLorenzo defended the League of the South from criticisms by neoconservatives and concluded that the League "advocates peace and prosperity in the tradition of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson".Dilorenzo, Thomas J. (February 25, 2005). "[http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo91.html The Dreaded 'S' Word]". LewRockwell.com

In 2011, DiLorenzo testified before the House Financial Services Committee at the request of former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul; during the hearing, Congressman Lacy Clay criticized DiLorenzo for his associations with the League, which Clay described as a "neo-Confederate group".Walker, Childs (February 11, 2011). [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-02-11/news/bs-md-loyola-professor-hearing-20110211_1_loyola-professor-religious-group-missouri-congressman "Loyola professor faces questions about ties to pro-secession group"]. The Baltimore Sun. In Reuters and Baltimore Sun articles about the hearing, a Southern Poverty Law Center story about DiLorenzo's connection with the League was mentioned.Sullivan, Andy (February 9, 2011). [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/us-usa-congress-paul-idUSTRE7190CZ20110210 "Paul calls Fed's Bernanke "cocky" in House hearing."] ReutersWalker, Childs (February 11, 2011). [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-02-14/news/bs-md-dilorenzo-loyola-reaction-20110214_1_loyola-vice-president-ties-economics-professors "Loyola professor faces questions about ties to pro-secession group."] The Baltimore Sun Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote about Clay's remarks and he said the League of the South was listing DiLorenzo on its Web site as an 'affiliated scholar' as recently as 2008.{{cite news|last=Milbank|first=Dana| authorlink=Dana Milbank |title=Ron Paul's economic Rx: a Southern secessionist|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/09/AR2011020905879.html|accessdate=24 November 2013|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=February 9, 2011}}[http://web.archive.org/web/20071029165040/http://lsinstitute.org/ League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern History and Culture]

DiLorenzo denied any affiliation with the group, telling a Baltimore Sun reporter that "I don't endorse what they say and do any more than I endorse what Congress says and does because I spoke at [the] hearing...." An investigation as to whether DiLorenzo had ties to the League was subsequently conducted by Loyola University.Burris, Joe (February 14, 2011). [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-02-14/news/bs-md-dilorenzo-loyola-reaction-20110214_1_loyola-vice-president-ties-economics-professors "Loyola investigating whether professor has ties to hate group.]" The Baltimore Sun{{Update after|2014|3|18|reason=What were the results of the investigation?}} In a later LewRockwell.com column, DiLorenzo described his association with the League as limited to "a few lectures on the economics of the Civil War" he gave to the League of the South Institute about thirteen years ago.[http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo201.html "My Associations with Liars, Bigots, and Murderers"], Lewrockwell.com, February 11, 2011

I'd implement but for the proposed temporary IBAN/TBAN being discussed at an ArbCom page. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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)

As the CSD has been removed by another editor, this point is now resolved/moot. – S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)