Talk:Defending the Undefendable

June 2013
"an example of the moral corruption to which libertarianism is prone." ...bias much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.203.18 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2013‎

Removal of Harvard undergrad publication
An undergraduate publication, whether a magazine on politics/economics or a school paper, is not an RS for economics. I recognize that students at Harvard College are better than most, but they are still college kids. Their highest level of educational attainment is a HS diploma. Steeletrap (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These publications often are used as RS. Also personal letters like Hayeks. We would need independent neutral 3rd party opinions on both of these. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Al Gore wrote for (and cofounded) HPR. Do you believe he was RS for economics when he was a teenager? Steeletrap (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mercy ! SPECIFICO  talk  00:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Something tells me most of them are juniors and seniors with more than sufficient knowledge under their belts. Re: this diff - Please consult RSN and BLP before reinserting such a source. I don't think either source has BLP implications for Block. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Al Gore was founder and editor in chief of this outfit. He had a C average at Harvard and did not study economics. This is not an RS for economics. Steeletrap (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One anecdotal example repeated twice does not make an argument. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Better late than never, bring stalled discussion To RSN. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Stossel
Can't we find somebody more expert than John Stossel to comment on this significant work of libertarian doctrine? Seems weak. SPECIFICO talk  01:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like the Hayek quote your Correction:Steeletrap removed? Took me 37 seconds to discover that John Gray in "Hayek on Liberty" talks about Hayek's "endorsement" of the book here. Hope you won't call it edit warring if I put that back in soon with that discussion. Will look for more when have 10 minutes to spare. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't strike through your lie about me removing Hayek content, I will seek to have you blocked per AEGS. I've warned you previously, there will be no further warnings. Strike your misrepresentation of my actions.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. With all the removals of material by the two or three of you the last few days, one can just get confused! AGF: it's an error and not a lie. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Smart move. Next time you commit an "error" I will not warn you before seeking a block.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: this diff removing Hayek content - Please consult RSN and BLP before reinserting such a source. I don't think either Hayek source has BLP implications for Block, especially since we now have the Gray info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)