Talk:Conceived in Liberty

2012 comment
I don't know the proper format for doing such a thing, but I'd like the article to point out that a copy of the book is available online: http://mises.org/document/3006/Conceived-in-Liberty-Volume-1-A-New-Land-A-New-People — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.179.33 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?
The book appears to have attracted no scholarly discussion and the article cites no sources. Before launching an AfD I am soliciting comment here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  01:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar gives it 22 citations, but I haven't checked what they are. Scholarly discussions, while useful, are not necessarily the only measure of notability. A book may have importance outside of such circles. The article has 3 reviews which might be useful as references. But I agree that when comparing the 22 cites to the hundreds that his other books have garned, it is not that significant. I suggest incorporating the major points of the work into the biography article and then do a WP:BLAR. In the meantime I'll tag the article as refimprove.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Even Murray is entitled to a clinker or 2 and we don't want to diffuse interest in his more successful efforts.   SPECIFICO  talk  03:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it strange that Rothbard's most important book advancing his non-empirical economics, Man Economy and State, lacks a Wiki page while this revisionist history work, claiming that "radical libertarianism" in a Rothbardian conception was at the heart of the American Revolution, has one. Update: I appear to have been mistaken. Steeletrap (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange but true, strange but true. Maybe this one was made into a movie?  SPECIFICO  talk  03:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. But go do an AfD. It will just motivate someone or other to beef it up. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard on revisionism
Rothbard explicitly endorses a "revisionist" approach to history. Editors should find RS that both 1) evaluate what Rothbard means by "revisionism" and 2) illustrate how the revisionist methodology impacted Conceived in Liberty.

A good illustration of how radically revisionist Rothbard's historical outlook is comes in his effusive praise of Harry Elmer Barnes's World War II "revisionism." In one of many pieces Murray wrote in honor of Barnes' work on that era, he describes Barnes as "single-handed[ly]" debunking what Rothbard considers myths about WWII despite the fact that, according to Rothbard, Barnes was virtually alone in his views, "scorned by historians and laymen alike". The reason for this scorn, as Murray undoubtedly knows, is that Barnes' World War II promoted 'Holocaust Denial and was widely perceived as anti-Semitic. Thus, Murray (who oddly never rejects, endorses, or even mentions Barnes's view on the Holocaust and European Jewry in this or other pieces praising his WWII work, despite the fact that his WWII work is most well-known for promoting these views) is quite the revisionist indeed. Steeletrap (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source that actually discusses all these. I guess it's like, for example, someone going to the Bill Clinton pages and speculating on how many other women he raped and writing "gee, I know I saw a WP:RS somewhere saying so, I think" and then wondering whether that makes any other pronouncement on any other progressive issue Cinton ever made a totally hypocritical joke and totally null and void. In fact, whether 40% of all his articles should be about - and at least three subsections titled regarding - the fact that he is an accused rapist and serial molester. (And why did his dog run away and get hit by a car?)
 * (From now on when I reply to your engaging in such speculation without secondard sources I'll just write ("See Clinton rapist argument" and link to this diff. So you'll know I'm referring to the above.)
 * That's the kind of annoying personal opinionating ad nauseum without a relevant secondary source that makes wikipedia say "cut the WP:Soapbox". If you have a secondary source commenting on Rothbard's historical revisionism, fine. Try books.google, they tend to have somebody's opinion on just about anything. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Carol. I am distressed by your remarks, which I consider to be uncivil. I provided sources for my claims that Rothbard is a revisionist; while it can't be used for CoL since it does not address it directly, these wildly revisionist views on Barnes and other matters are, in my view, clearly material to his understanding of and approach to history. Please try to be more civil in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How many times do you have to be told, including by others, that pointing out policy problems is not incivility. Repeated WP:Soapbox against people you have ridiculed as little better than scientologists without even looking for secondary sources is just against policy. See User:Mrfrobinson's comment here that the following policy-related comment of mine was not uncivil: "Only your POV makes you see a mountain where there's a molehill."
 * Repeatedly charging incivility when people point out policy problems is incivility. I thought maybe if I used an example of interest to you to illustrate unnecessary, unsourced Soapbox you'd get it. Evidently you didn't. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both you and Robinson, Carol. And I don't see why language such as your saying I am engaging in "annoying personal opinionating ad nauseum" is necessary to making an (in any case, incorrect) point. I know I have been imperfect toward you in civility; how about we both commit to trying harder in this regard going forward? Steeletrap (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also: If I were to see an article Bill Clinton wrote where he said he raped women, I would of course be obliged to concede that discussion of such a source was not soapbox. We have articles written by Rothbard where he praises 1) a "revisionist" approach to studying history and 2) praises the "revisionist" work on World War II of a man whose work on that era is best known for its Holocaust Denial and alleged anti-Semitism. Note that I am not saying that Rothbard is himself a denier; merely that he is a revisionist who praised a denier's "work" on World War II; these are not rumors but documented facts, and certainly speak volumes about Rothbard's perspective on and approach to history. Steeletrap (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeated Soapbox is annoying, that's why it's against policy. Clinton article mentions Juanita Broaddrick accusation (among others) and her article details it. So such speculation from either factoid is either a) SOAPBOX or b) allowed. I say soapbox. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Broaddrick analogy does not work logically because the things I'm saying are facts, documented in articles written by Rothbard. I assure you I am acting in good faith here. You are welcome to challenge my view that Rothbard's revisionist approach is relevant to this book on Colonial history he wrote (and we can all agree that barring an RS which makes this explicit point, it should not be in the article). Steeletrap (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When one spends far more time discussion speculative issues, time that could have been spent researching and adding material, it becomes relevant. Like all the speculative stuff you put on Hoppe's page but never bothered to research. It's related to your views expressed in this excerpt from a long recent posting: ...the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians... "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult.... This also is related to POV_pushing. I'll just quote the policy and that's all I have to say:
 * Soapbox: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think of the movement like scientologists and a cult. I can't help that because it's what I honestly believe. Users who share my views on scientology regularly contribute effective NPOV edits to scientology; I believe I can and have done the same thing to movement-related pages. I appreciate you challenging me from a very different point of view. But I do not believe that the manner in which you are challenging me is polite or friendly. (I also need to work on doing both of these toward you!)
 * Incidentally, I request that these remarks be hatted, because they have diverted from substantive policy related manners into personal remarks about my alleged misconduct, which should be resolved in a different forum. Steeletrap (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph was fine, though a tiny bit of research into something actually relevant would have shown an actual interest in improving the article. In WP:Dispute talk pages are the first place to discuss such things as off topic blah blah for pov reasons. And each article is different and must be addressed individually.
 * Find something about this book being crap revisionism and feel free to discuss that. Otherwise the whole thing is off topic and should be collapsed. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph should be kept. It was an illustration of Rothbard's revisionism; it is informative to the discussion of his revisionist approach to history, which may (if we can find an RS drawing this connection) be relevant to his volume on American (colonial) history. The stuff relating to me personally should be hatted as OT. Steeletrap (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You write: I do think of the movement like scientologists and a cult. I can't help that because it's what I honestly believe. Well I have a few views and POVs too, even negative ones on some subjects of articles, but I control myself because it detracts from editing. Where does it say we can't complain about POVs when necessary? I can't find it. But I can find: NOTFORUM and NOTFORUM and comment on them. It is absurd that you and SPECIFICO complain about Keynes article discussing his homo/bisexuality, which is not something negative and nasty. Yet you constantly come up with items that only can be describe as "negative and nasty dirt" about the economists you have made it perfectly clear you don't like. So your POV needs to be mentioned whereever it pops up. If you'd just let me do it for other editors' edification and otherwise ignore it, it would not take up so much space. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 23:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conceived in Liberty. 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/20070218095902/http://www.news.mises.org/story/1880 to http://www.news.mises.org/story/1880

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) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)