Talk:Bryan Caplan/Archive 1

Untitled
"Austrian economists have... praised him as one of their more knowledgeable and interesting critics." Can this be supported with references? Mattley 23:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Needs more content. Try creating a published works section to flesh this out, as well as any awards and accomplishments, history etc. Otherwise looks much like a vanity page--Tznkai 03:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I added significant content to this page and removed the stub tag. I think the issues raised here have been cleared up. Tyrannicide 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Second Deletion nomination
I say this article goes up for deletion again. This guy just hasn't contributed anything significant to his field, and is insignificant. After reading this article, it reads as if it were written in the third person by the first person, by that i mean, if reads like Byran wrote it himself, not that that is criteria for deletion, it just includes insignificant facts like where he blogs and so forth. Anyways, ill give it a couple days before i tag it again.--Gephart 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I find no insignificant facts on the page nor is he an insignificant player in the economics field. The reason why the article might sound like it's written as you say it is could be explained by the possibility that the author used Caplan's intellectual autobiography as a source. Also, similar concerns about the article were listed last time this went up for deletion. I don't see why we are having the same conversation again.--David Youngberg 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I do find it a bit odd that a person that has a website and writes in a blog should be included. I don't think he's that notable outside his closest friends and supporters. // Liftarn

His book has been reviewed in The Economist ("Vote for Me, Dimwit", 14 June 2007), The New Yorker ("Fractured Franchise", Louis Menand, 9 July 2007), The Wall Street Journal ("Casting a ballot with a certain cast of mind", Daniel Casse, 10 July 2007), The New York Times ("The voters speak: Baa!", Nicholas Kristof, 30 July 2007). The New Yorker piece was featured in Arts and Letters Daily. His article in the Economic Journal has been cited more than 50 times according to Google Scholar. Liftarn, Gephart, is that enough for you?


 * You guys have got to be kidding me. His essays have been included in Cato Institute publications and he has written articles for Reason Magazine. His book was reviewed by The Economist. He turns up 225,000 hits on Google. He research has been in the American Economic Review, Economic Journal, Journal of Law and Economics, Social Science Quarterly as well as the Economics journal put out by the Mises Institute. This guy is WAY MORE than notable enough for a Wikipedia article.--Jayson Virissimo 05:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Recommend trimming external links
This article has a disproportionately large number of external links. I have removed most of the ones that were in the body of the article because according to Wikipedia guidelines, "external links should not normally be used in the body of an article." However, even the external links section is overflowing. Not everything the guy has ever written needs to be linked to. Instead, judgment should be used to list only those useful to most readers. Keep in mind that according to official Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" --JHP (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotation
I've removed the section of quotations as it doesn't appear anyone has quoted him. The references are to things he's written and as such are mere slogans. If others quote him, then perhaps the quotations become notable. In the context it was presented in this article, it was mere puffery and has no place on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I remember the quotes being especially out-of-place. Sanpitch (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Need secondary sources; most of article sourced to Caplan
This article looks like a summary of his CV and web pages. If he didn't edit it, looks like associates might have. Is there any independent commentary on him? He's hardly written anything notable. I'm not a deletionist, but it does bother me to see Caplan used as an expert on Austrian economics and a critic of Murray Rothbard when it looks like he's quite unnotable. Please find secondary WP:RS that actually address his accomplishments and when they are maybe half the article we can take the tags off. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc  19:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your insinuation that Dr. Caplan has edited this article is libelous and a gross violation of WP policy. You should immediately make it clear that you have no basis for such assertion and expunge it.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Caplan's economics research on the rationality of voting has hundreds of citations in mainstream economics journals (1), as has his research on rational choice (2); his research applying rational choice theory to acts of terrorism has also been widely cited in mainstream journals (3).
 * OP's assertion is quite silly, particular given her view that Murray Rothbard (who does not employ the scientific method in his "economics" writings and has little to no substantive citations apart from those by Mises Institute journals, courtesy of personal friends and co-workers) is notable for his work as an "economist."
 * The article should (and could easily) be expanded to more rigorously detail Caplan's contributions to economics. but it is irresponsible, biased, and libelous to insinuate that this BLP article was written by himself or his "associates." Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never seen an article with 36 refs that doesn't have refs besides the individuals own writings. I had to check a couple times to make sure it wasn't a hacker hoax, esp. given the role playing-related and Dragon Magazine info. But finally found his CV which looked credible; I have a feeling the four kids keep him busy. More than half of Rothbard's refs are by third parties and I agree a lot more should be.
 * Tag wise, it really needs something like The only refs in the article are from the subject of the article. but that wasn't available. Any way, if you are sure it's not done by GMU grad students trying to get in good with the prof, feel free to remove Autobiography|date-flagged|date=August 2013. I was waiting to see if any anon ips from GMU jumped up to deny it :-) But do leave the other two til some one actually enters a dozen or more refs by others. (I assume he's not Steeletrap's faculty advisor, by the way  User:Carolmooredc  01:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a laughing (or "winking") matter. Your tag and remarks clearly imply that either Caplan himself or a personal friend/colleague wrote this article. You need to either provide evidence for your claims or 1) admit it was baseless 2) apologize and 3) strike your remarks. It is difficult to appreciate your concern about BLPs being "trashed" (usually based on questionable interpretations of policy) when you are blatantly spreading falsehoods about a BLP! Steeletrap (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the tag, do a WP:MfD. There isn't one for just possible associates of the individual, I'm afraid. And it doesn't come with instructions on how to know who edited or how to use it. So don't read so much into it and just remove it. User:Carolmooredc  02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@carolmooredc, Prof. Caplan is a real living person. You are projecting your WP battles on Prof. Caplan but that is wrong, it is destructive of WP and it is a violation of the BLP policies which protect Wikipedia and the subjects of its articles. You should remove that tag at once. SPECIFICO talk  03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With all the talk of fringe professors and walled gardens, I got curious as to how many professors commented on Caplan's work, since he was used as a reliable source/expert in Austrian school and Murray Rothbard. When I went through the 36 refs I was shocked to find no one but Caplan as a source, something I've only seen in BLPs with two or three refs. After reading the whole thing through, for 47 seconds it occurred to me the whole thing might be a hoax put up at the GMU site by Anonymous (group) or something, but I searched for his CV, found it, and said, no it's not, silly me. (We've discussed it longer than I've thought it.) I'm making the point when the only refs are "one source", primary sources and no sources, some people will assume this is just a fan site or whatever, and not a properly written article. So feel free to improve it. User:Carolmooredc  16:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for conceding this point and upholding BLP policy. SPECIFICO  talk  16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for conceding my point on improving this BLP. Though seriously, if the article isn't beefed up to make him look a bit more credible, some people might start challenging him as a reliable source for expert opinions, given no WP:RS has indicated he might be. User:Carolmooredc  16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and the criteria which determine whether a reference is RS. It is not merely personal. Prof. Caplan's work has been published by numerous, independent presses and journals which have established editorial standards and procedures for peer review. Bryan's writings in those publications are RS, to the extent they are relevant to the content of a WP article in the areas of his expertise. SPECIFICO talk  17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Too much reliance on primary sources
Picking up the same refrain as Carolmooredc in the thread above, I am noticing that this article relies too much on primary sources, telling the reader about Caplan via Caplan's own writings. This has become a greater problem with the recent additions brought forward by User:Vipul. Five of six paragraphs about Caplan's pacifism depend entirely on primary sources. The sections about Caplan's views on immigration, his views on anarcho-capitalism, and his "moral and political views" depend entirely on Caplan's writings.

We should source Caplan's views mainly to WP:SECONDARY sources. If secondary sources do not talk about certain of Caplan's views then we do not need to, either. The interest shown by third parties is what indicates that one of Caplan's views is significant. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see there are a few more refs, though haven't checked out the relevance. Quess we need to put the template back on. User:Carolmooredc  23:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Carl Rustici
What exactly makes this guy more notable than Thomas Carl Rustici? 129.174.78.220 (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This and this. скоморохъ  15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but he was senior economics advisor for Ben Carson! N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If Thomas Carl Rustici is now notable an article could be created. The original was deleted eight years ago. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryan Caplan. 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/20130702025618/http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.pdf to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.pdf

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) 22:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedic entry
This reads like it was written by Caplan himself, or someone who is very taken with him. Even the cited material is highly laudatory, or is cited because it is a quote from Caplan himself. There is little that passes for an objective tone aside from what is used for biographical information.

Just for a small bit of evidence: After having long shed a youthful infatuation with the works of Russian American writer Ayn Rand and her philosophical system of Objectivism, in 2004 Caplan wrote in his essay 'An Intellectual Biography', "I rejected Christianity because I determined that it was, to be blunt, idiotic. I rejected Objectivism and Austrianism, in contrast, as mixtures of deep truths and unfortunate mistakes. Let me begin with the deep truths. The Objectivists were right to insist that reality is objective, human reason able to grasp it, and scepticism without merit. They correctly hold that humans have free will, morality is objective, and the pursuit of self-interest typically morally right." In his essay, "Atlas Shrugged and Public Choice: The Obvious Parallels", Caplan lauds Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as making "an important contribution to social science."

This section has 131 words, 80 are quoted. 11 are the words in the titles of his own material. That's 69% of this text. Not to mention the line "After having long shed a youthful infatuation..." What is this article? --Rafajs77 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I emphatically disagree, and you are off-base. The non-NPOV material added by fans of Caplan that read like it was written by someone "taken with him" has been removed from the article. I despise Bryan Caplan, and I added this section specifically, citing sources not written by Caplan, to counter the impression that some people seem to have that Caplan is a standard-issue right-winger on certain topics. The typical Christian conservative in the US would deplore someone who rejects Christianity because he finds it "idiotic", and I think it's safe to say most social scientists would find it laughable that he thinks Ayn Rand made "an important contribution to social science". It's also laughable that, like Paul Ryan, he admires such a cretin. I don't think you've read the article carefully. Carlstak (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideological Turing Test
As originally removed, this text is sourced exclusively to primary and affiliated sources. If it warrants mentioning in the article, please cite reliable, secondary sources. Until then, the content should be removed. (This point has been reiterated for years—see above.) czar  08:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Let's remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is for fans to write their narrative as a matter of participatory culture. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ – S. Rich (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the content about the "ideological turing test" is sourced to Caplan's blog. It mentions that others have reacted to that blog entry. The content is neither about Caplan nor is it independent and reliably sourced. This looks like a craven effort to write about Caplan's concept without any real coverage of same. I agree with on this point. If you disagree you are welcome to say so. I have warned the IP editor about WP:EW.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "Caplan's blog". Rather, Caplan wrote something in Econlib, a blog sponsored by Liberty Fund. Also, Ideological Turing Test redirects to this article, so we need something with explains it. How is this as an independent source? Or this? – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see: Thought Experiments: Popular Thought Experiments in Philosophy, Physics ... By Fredrick Kennard. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Craven effort" is right. This sort of manipulation often rears its head when ardent libertarians or so-called anarcho-capitalists are involved in editing an article. See the laughably non-NPOV and biased editing travesty with blatant over-reliance on primary sources that is the Independent Institute article for comparison. An opinion piece in the Irish Times about a Catholic convert blogger is an inadequate source for an encyclopedia article. The 80/20 Sales and Marketing book published by Entrepreneur Press is a little better, but not much. The book, Thought Experiments: Popular Thought Experiments in Philosophy, Physics, Ethics, Computer Science & Mathematics, is self-published original research published by a vanity press.


 * The reason there are so few academic references (that aren't primary sources) to the Ideological Turing Test is that few academics take it seriously, or consider it notable enough to mention. Carlstak (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The current citation for Caplan's contribution to the Ideological Turing Test is a LessWrong article by Eliezer Yudkowsky that doesn't mention Caplan. This doesn't seem like a relevant source. Gladius-veritatis (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideological Turing test
If you want to include the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox or anywhere else of prominence, you need to demonstrate that it's considered significant. That means reliable independent secondary sources. Wikipedia policy does not permit us to go to primary or self-published material by a subject, decide that some specific thing is significant, and add it as a "known for" or "contribution" based on the primary source. I have tried to find secondary sources establishing that this is considered a significant contribution. Google finds 8,450 results, fewer than 200 considered unique. Two pages of hits, pretty much all on conservative blogs and not a single RS. By contrast, the actual Turing test gets over two million hits. Google Scholar funds a dozen mentions, mostly non-RS and none independent.

This is especially important for Caplan, given the history of paid promotion of his work (e.g. by ). We are not here to advertise, we are here to summarise what reliable sources say. Which, in this case, is that Caplan made up this term one day, it had a brief moment of popularity, but is largely ignored. Hence does not belong in the infobox, and certainly not sourced to the primary source. Guy (help!) 08:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * (cc'ing ) I don't want to start an edit war with you, but I warn you that you have reverted the same change four times now, and three within the past 24 hours. Moreover, and more importantly, your reversions aren't based on sound reasoning.
 * Your case for concluding that the reference to "Ideological Turing test" should be removed was that Caplan wasn't "know for" this idea. When I tried to explain that the relevant criterion was whether the Ideological Turing test was a contribution of Caplan's, you responded that "contribution is not the same as 'known for'". Then, when I asked you to point us to the part of the Infobox where Caplan is said to be "known for" the Ideological Turing test, you finally appeared to have realized that this had never been stated in the article. But instead of admitting your mistake, you silently switched to the different argument that "Ideological Turing test" wasn't a contribution of Caplan's—despite previously emphasizing the difference between the two.
 * Furthermore, you also assert that "Ideological turing test" is only supported by a primary source. Indeed, you repeat this claim in your very last edit, saying that "the ONLY source anyone can come up with is self-published". Yet as can be seen by anyone who cares to inspect the diffs, I supplied a secondary source almost a month ago. And this secondary source—an article published in a leading philosophy journal—clearly establishes that "ideological Turing test" is a contribution of Caplan's. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that at no point have you cited an independent secondary source for the claim that this is considered a "contribution".
 * Right now, you have cited one mention in one paper. That's WP:UNDUE. To qualify at this level it has to be a significant thing, and you have entirely failed to demonstrate that. In fact, searches indicate that the concept is generally ignored. As a bare minimum it would need to be included in textbooks, to qualify as a contribution to the field.
 * So: show me solid evidence that this is considered an important contribution to the field. The "contributions" parameter is for notable contributions to the field, not for every idea anyone once had that got talked about in a couple of papers and some conservative blogs here and there.
 * As to not wanting to start an edit war, you actually did that. WP:BRD, not WP:BR-crowbar-D. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for disputed content, the default is not to include it until such consensus is apparent. Anything else is a POV-pusher's charter. Guy (help!) 12:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this discussion is getting anywhere. As I document above, your entire case for removing the reference to "ideological Turing test" rested on two false premises: first, that the Infobox stated that this was an idea Caplan was "known for"; and secondly, that only primary sources had been provided in support of such a statement. Since that case failed, now you come up with an entirely new argument, namely that "as a bare minimum it would need to be included in textbooks", despite there not being an explicit Wikipedia policy requiring this, nor this being remotely in line with standard Wikipedia practice.
 * As it happens, I landed on this page semi-randomly, have no personal interest in the subject, and am in the process of reducing the time I spend Wikipedia. As a consequence, I won't be pursuing the matter further. But I can assure those with more time and energy than I have, and with a desire to protect the quality and integrity of this article, that the argument for preserving the content JzG is trying to remove is solid. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There were two secondary sources as well as the primary source so it should stay. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , but nothing to substantiate the claim that this is considered a significant contribution. In fact, you appear to have cited all the sources in order to try to ram this through.
 * if discussion is going nowhere it's because we have the usual Wikipedia collision between what someone decides is important, and what independent sources say actually is important. I refer you again to the Google results. You're claiming, at the level of insertion in the infobox, that Caplan is known for this, but the total number of uses of the term in either academia or on the web is tiny. Google Scholar finds exactly 14 references, including the original source.
 * Nobody's arguing that it's not a thing, the question is whether it's a signficant enough thing to put in the infobox. Evidence for that is entirely lacking. Guy (help!) 13:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Ideological Turing test
Is the inclusion of the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox of this article appropriate? Guy (help!) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

 * No, not in the infobox. In order to qualify as a "contribution" significant enough to qualify for the infobox of an article, a concept must be demonstrably significant. It can be included in the article but to include it as a "contribution" in the infobox is WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Insignificant concept, (nebulous nonsense actually) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, per reasons given above. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Some article content first maybe? This is a very high bar to meet, it should be a major contribution to an area of work or study. If not worthy of it's own article and not even text in Caplan's article then it's hardly a significant contribution.&mdash;eric 16:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Ideally, "contributions" listed in an infobox should be bluelinked; even if they don't have an article devoted to them, they should be described at adequate length, within the biography or elsewhere. If they aren't covered yet, then at the very least, the sources should exist that demonstrate they are significant contributions and that encyclopedia content could be written about them. That bar is not cleared here. In this particular instance, the idea isn't even the subject's contribution: Caplan slapped an obvious term on an idea mentioned by Paul Krugman, and advocated by teachers of debate and rhetoric well before Krugman too. "Ideological Turing test" isn't a contribution, it's branding &mdash; and it's not our job to propagate that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No - At least not yet, per my comment below. — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No - Agree with XOR'easter 's well stated and explained arguments above. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, AFAIK, it is not significant enough to be in the infobox of the mentioned article, and being included in the article might be better. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No per XOR'easter 's comments. Carlstak (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Google finds fewer that 8,500 hits for the term "ideological Truing test". Google Scholar finds 14 references in total, including the original blog post, which is cited five times, of which two are English language peer-reviewed publications. Ideological Turing test is a redirect here. I am unable to find any evidence that this is taught as a significant theory in any field, which would appear to be a bare minimum requirement for as "contribution" from someone presented as an academic in a specific field. Guy (help!) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's only 120 Google hits. The initial search claims to find thousands, but if you actually page through them, they stop at page 12.  Google lies.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 22:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If I try to see what it is, I can find a redirect to this article and a link to his blog about it here but there's not even a section about it in this article. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Influences
The list of "influences" is becoming absurd, and approaching a list of all the idols of the freshwater schools. Ben Bernanke, James M. Buchanan, Milton Friedman, David D. Friedman, Robin Hanson, Michael Huemer, Murray Rothbard, Michael Spence, Julian Simon, Ludwig von Mises, Philip Tetlock.

Influences is normally one or two names. If someone was influenced, as this list shows, by an entire school of thought, then you put the school of thought in there instead.

This article has a woeful history of promotional editing, let's not make it worse, eh? Guy (help!) 20:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's quite a diverse bunch. Seems like they're all referenced. If you switch to a school of thought you'll be accused of synthesis, most likely.
 * This looks like a personal beef. What could promotional editing have to do with this? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , for the last severral years we've had a succession of people trying to make Caplan look more significant than he is, including (per the discussion above) adding stuff to the infobox that doesn't belong.
 * The "Influences" parameter is there to identify the one or two people who have influenced an entire career. If he's citing a dozen people then they are not influences, they are just people whose work he has admired. I went through about 30 articles on economists, most had between zero and three influences listed. Guy (help!) 21:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree to remove many of the influences, and leave only the notable figures from the various schools of thought Caplan takes from, and those whose influence is described in this article. I would suggest only having Bernanke, Buchanan and Huemer in the Influences parameter.
 * Bernanke; in Caplan's article The Mystery of Bernanke Solved: "Ben Bernanke was my teacher, and a major influence on my macroeconomic thinking."
 * Buchanan, as the founder of Public Choice, and Huemer as described int he article. Saxones288 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd be fine withy that. Guy (help!) 09:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
So far, this page reads like a straight up endorsement of Caplan. While I understand that since it is a living person, there are plenty of libel issues, we could certainly do a whole lot better in making this a neutral encyclopedia article.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just listened to a podcast on EconTalk of his, and he sounds somewhat reasonable, but this Wikipedia entry looked like it had been written by the guy himself. I deleted some of the blatant self-serving babble and the goofy reference to his graphic novel. Sanpitch (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted a lot of your removal. Sorry, I didn't see this talk page stuff and there were no edit summaries. Anyway, I think the material that you removed was fine to leave in. It's sourced, and of at least some interest. If the tone of the article is the problem, then maybe concentrate on the tone and not the content? C RETOG 8(t/c) 15:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is of interest if you like the resumes of economists to be on Wikipedia. As the other people have said on *this* page, the article is biased. By reverting the edits, you kept it sounding like a hagiography. Does every edit to Wikipedia need a summary?! 69.236.72.49 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * An edit without an edit summary is an unexplained edit, so may be suspect. I think it's your call whether to include an edit summary or not, but it certainly helps other editors to understand what's going on. I'm not an expert on what's expected of biographies on WP. It seems to me, re-reading the article, that it's fine, although short. It doesn't include criticisms, which it could if there are significant ones. I've asked for input from the biography project. C RETOG 8(t/c) 09:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, I thought Caplan sounded pretty smart in the podcast I listened to, but this bio feels rather undergraduate and makes him sound like a fresh PhD grad who has to list every publication he's ever had to boost his ego. Just to be clear, do you have any personal connection with Caplan? Sanpitch (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, I only know Caplan from some of his writings, and I don't follow him particularly closely. I think he's notable, in that he's making a name for himself (still on the small side) as a "public intellectual". And I don't see any fair way to remove material, even if the article does read a bit like a resume. It just seems to me like a small bio article is bound to read that way. C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly see how this article is an endorsement of Caplan. Instead it is a reasonably encyclopedic description of his accomplishments. I'm going to remove the dispute notice. RussNelson (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there still a reason for the advert, fanpov, and POV issues banner? fiveby(zero) 14:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ideological Turing test redux
Today I discovered the deletion discussion for a page about the "ideological Turing test" (I'll call it "iTt" for short), an idea that I had never heard of before. (I didn't know much about Caplan either, though I had heard of his book The Myth of the Rational Voter.) I found the deletion discussion because it links to Rogerian argument—which is an article I've worked on—because several editors in the deletion discussion pointed out the similarity between the iTt and an aspect of Rogerian argument, namely the requirement to state an opponent's views to the opponent's satisfaction. The iTt idea struck me as a clever extension of this requirement to a game-like test.

I agree that there is not enough coverage of the iTt in reliable sources for a Wikipedia article on the subject, but I thought the sources presented in the deletion discussion may be sufficient for a small section about the iTt in this article (and then the section could be linked from the "See also" section of Rogerian argument, since the connection is obvious enough that several editors already pointed it out, and I noticed that Caplan's original blog post on the iTt and an important source on Rogerian argument both quote John Stuart Mill's well-known phrase from On Liberty as a precursor: "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that"). For example, there are sections about the iTt in recent books by Julia Galef and Arnold Kling, and in a recent article in the long-running philosophy journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. The "Books" section of the article could be changed to "Works" and a new section titled "Ideological Turing test" (in quotation marks, indicating the title of the original blog post) could be inserted about Caplan's blog post. The section would mention that he wrote the post and describe the idea, referencing the reliable sources. Is anyone opposed to this proposal? Biogeographist (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, it might warrant a small section here, facile and derivative though it obviously is. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. I agree; I'll see what I can come up with and make sure it's appropriately modest. Biogeographist (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: primary sources
and, you are currently engaged in an edit war on this page. The way to resolve the disagreement you are having is by discussing it here, not by being rude to each other and contravening WP rules. Please try to remain civil. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This page has a long history of boosterism, including COI and sockpuppets. So I am looking for evidence that anything we cover has been judged significant by reliable, independent, secondary sources (which is what Wikipedia requires). If an independently written and reliably published book about the fields of econmics in which Caplan is involved, describes his views on Ayn Rand or whatever, then sure, but autobiographies and books published by think-tanks are not reliable independent sources, because they are trying to advance an idea rather than describe it. Same goes for "Caplan wrote X, source, paper where Caplan wrote X". We should never do that, regardless of X or who wrote it. Instead we should refer to what reliable independent sources say.
 * Of course there is a bit of tension because for the most part what reliable independent sources say about Caplan is: nothing. There is a reason why so many of the mentions of his writing around Wikipedia are primary-sourced and were added by COI editors or sockpuppets. But I am happy to include anything that is supported by reliable sources that are intellectually independent of the subject. No think-tanks, though, please. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should have had a closer look at the references before reverting. However, I think it would be best to add one of them back to support Michael Huemer being listed as an influence in the infobox, otherwise that should be removed. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As the editor who originally added the section on Caplan and Ayn Rand (and I am most certainly not a "COI editor or sockpuppet", I would like to point out that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says:
 * "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.


 * There is nothing interpretive about the cited primary sources; they are direct quotations (according to MOS, which, again, says "a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation") used to establish that Caplan said these things. The section is allowable. Carlstak (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , not what I said. The problem here is WP:UNDUE: the article has been heavcily influenced by promotional COI editing, leading to resume-building. Caplan is a very minor figure and we should not be mining the internet for primary sourced material to inflate the significance of work or opinions on which nobody else sees fit to comment. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? You started your edit-warring session with an edit summary saying "Primary sourced...", then you did a revert with summary that started "Again primary sourced...", and then another that started "Do you not understand what "primary source" means?" Looks like a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. Carlstak (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. This does seem to be the first mention of UNDUE. BLPPRIMARY is the next logical thing we should discuss.
 * Should we also discuss the deletion of his thesis title @SPECIFICO here? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is UNDUE and singularly uninformative, strictly generic.  SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)^

Citations of Bryan's claim on the firm etymological ground of the term "Anarcho-Capitalism"
In the views section of the page, it is stated that Caplan "has claimed that anarcho-capitalists have a better claim on the history of anarchist thought than "mainstream anarchists", or "left-anarchists", as he refers to them", followed by references [38] and [39]. However, these citations are only criticism. I propose, instead, to change these citations for the reference to Bryan's actual claim followed by "[...], statement which has been disputed by other anarchists." If there's no response by Sunday, I'll carry out these modifications myself. Coindorni (talk) 02:15AM, 29 October 2021 (GMT-3)
 * The criticisms don't even have proper bibliographic information: authors and original publication dates are missing. Please fix those as well. Biogeographist (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)