Jump to content

Talk:Jesús Huerta de Soto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Integrating material; shorter Sechrest

[edit]

There really was no need for a reception or praise section since one sentence fit nicely into an existing section and the other, below can be added to any details about that book. I removed one WP:OR statement about "colleagues" since you'd need a ref for that. Also, one mention that a former congress person involved with Mises since it seems trivial in comparison. Or we can add that back and mention that Mises published the version of the Sechret book that review Huerta de Soto.

It seems silly to mention these loose connections over and over again like a mantra. Your general reader probably will read it as meaning "Geeze, these Mises people must be really important to be mentioned so often and this guy must be really important too." So there must be some sort of consistent rule about what needs mentioning when. Will think about it later.

Removed:

In a book published by the Mises Institute, its Associated Scholar Leland Yeager called the 1992 edition of Huerta de Soto's Socialism, Economic Calculation, and Entrepreneurship "an excellent and insightful book"
From Leland B. Yeager (2011). Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty?: Essays in Political Economy. Ludwig von Mises Institute. pp. 13–. ISBN 978-1-61016-421-4. Retrieved 15 June 2013.

Sechrest was way too long. I think that in the past I had a more NPOV version that balances description with criticism but would have to look for it. In the meantime just cut it down to more manageable size; if someone wants to do a better balanced version, go for it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must Sechrest be quoted at length? It is the largest paragraph in the article and his criticisms can be summed up in a few sentences. (Caleb983 (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

User:Carolmooredc, these connections are not "loose" at all. We are talking about co-workers, many of whom publish (and mingle) with each other regularly. Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR language and consistency of identification are the issues. a) no WP:OR language like co-workers or colleagues or friends or allies unless a source says it; so "also a fellow" or "on the faculty of" or "also published by" are acceptable; b) consistency in application: are only fellows and faculty members mentioned as being associated and are all of them mentioned as having that association, or are only some mentioned? Is being published by Mises.org an association? Selgin and Sechrest have been published by and spoken for LVMI. For all we know those guys may be (or have been) closer friends/etc. with Huerta de Soto than the other fellows/faculty/published writers. So should those associations be mentioned? Some one has done a few lectures on the "faculty" may not be as relevant as someone who has had one or more books published by them and thus is quite closely tied. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, I think your understanding of WP policy is "loose." "WP:OR" does not apply to talk page edits. I have not used the term "co-worker" or "friend" in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is an issue over a number of articles where here and there these or similar words where entered into article text, whether or not they currently remain. This is the first time I've thought carefully about the issue, but it is clear that a consistent policy would be helpful. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of factual info

[edit]

At this diff Steeletrap, like SPECIFICO, removes information about the BLPs activities as and economist and writer which is noncontroversial and of general interest. This sort of editing unintentionally disrupts the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my original edit summary, the content was WP:UNDUE. It repeated non-noteworthy information which is already in JHdSB's cv linked on the page. Why do you think this information is of such importance or "general interest" that it should be in the article? Please cite policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV we don't remove material just because we don't like it (for any of hundreds of reasons and we want to AfD the article permanently. For fun see Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I told you the content was UNDUE. Your reply was not responsive and because it disparaged me by claiming it was IDONTLIKEIT, your reply was a personal attack. Please strike it. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the board memberships are mentioned in Huerta's CV does not mean that they need not be mentioned here. If that logic were extended we could erase from this biography everything found in the CV, including schools attended, degrees earned, etc.
One sentence about board memberships on two peer-reviewed scholarly journals is not undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the clear WP:UNDUE issue. You've raised a straw man. Nobody has suggested erase "everything found in the CV" so it's not helpful for you to suggest as much. As editors we must determine the important and encyclopedic information. These two publications are not notable and being on their mastheads is not worthy of mention in the article. If you disagree, you'll need to address the stated issue -- not bring up false ones. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian business cycle and full reserve banking section

[edit]

Does anyone else think that the section on Huerta de Soto´s views on Austrian business cycles and FR banking is basically dedicated exclusively to criticisms of it by Sechrest? I was thinking that an elaboration on HdS´s actual views would be in order, instead of just Sechrest´s critiques (as the latter doesn´t make much sense without knowing what HdS actually said). Furthermore, there are positive reviews of his book, e.g., by Ludwig von den Hauwe and Guido Huelsmann avilable:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2399403 http://mises.org/daily/2076

I´m just looking for some feedback before I edit the article.195.77.35.250 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But the solution is not to add more LvMI commentaries but to look for analysis of his views in reliable third party sources. TFD (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What do you think of the linked van den Hauwe article above? It´s not affiliated with the MI, and to my knowledge neither is he? 195.77.35.250 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sechrest review

[edit]

In this edit [1] we have referenced material being deleted (since restored). A subsequent edit summary said that de Soto did not actually write about the particular material. However, the Sechrest text is about what Sechrest wrote, not what de Soto wrote. Seeking to remove the Sechrest material because of what an editor read in de Soto's book is original research. We rely on what the secondary sources, such as Sechrest, say. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It is not our place to question the points made in Sechrest's review. Rather, our task is to summarize the Sechrest review as accurately as possible, with proper weight given to it. Removing the review entirely is not the proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP has again removed the Sechrest material with an edit summary that says the quote is libelous. Such is not the case. Sechrest is critical of de Soto's theory and writing, and has not made any defamatory comment about de Soto. The review has been restored. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not get to libel someone with quotes of another. You have not read the book and you have little place editing this page. It's a long book and you clearly have no knowledge of it. Sechrest is not simply critical but makes false factual assertions. Find a better quality criticism and please refrain from bringing politics into your editing strategy. The quote is too long to begin with and in poor style. --173.64.52.8 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not libel to summarize a good-faith review. Sechrest's assertions stand as having been published. If someone wants to make a rebuttal they are welcome to publish one. Binksternet (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Perhaps IP can better describe what are the false factual assertions and which of them are summarized in this article. Of course, reliable sourcing for these descriptions would be necessary. But IP cannot say "I read the book and such-and-such is false because I say so." IP needs independent sourcing. Also, IP might provide a shorter quote to resolve what IP believes is a "too long to begin with" issue. If the quote is in poor style, then that is the fault of Sechrest. – S. Rich (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, the word "sin" is found on page 86, 88, 90, 92, 96, 97, 611 only in the quotations of others. The two uses in the main text are describing the views of Saravia de la Calle and Molina and Lugo. De Soto is simply discussing the well-known historical debates about usury. He does not "characterize" the practice this way himself. Furthermore, you quote too much. It has nothing to do with the source. I don't have to prove a negative buddy. You need to prove a positive. Don't turn this around. --173.64.52.8 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you are not being very specific in your comments. Please supply the "Help:Diff" or quotes of concern. What exactly – in the Sechrest material – is inappropriate? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with two parts of the analysis, but I am approaching one at a time. This part: "his characterization of fractional reserve banking as 'sin'".--173.64.55.173 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors refuse to read the talk page and are continuing to post false and inaccurate information. The opinions and politics of the reviewer are beside the point. One must support the quote posted and not turn the burden of evidence around. MDCory3470 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "edit request" portions of your talk page entry because you did not request an edit. The article is locked because of your continual removal of very well-cited information from a prominent critic. If you don't like this critic's viewpoint then publish a rebuttal. Wikipedia will represent all viewpoints, including Sechrest's. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's inaccurate information. I can't cite someone saying you are a child molester. Citation is a red herring. It's a poor quote and criticism. Get a better one. If you want a criticism, get an accurate one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.55.162 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Jesús Huerta de Soto. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesús Huerta de Soto. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto&oldid=1233723835"