Talk:Tom G. Palmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.

I removed "What a joke he is. He defines himself by his orientation more than anything else." from the previous version of the page, as it is derisive commentary, rather than a factual claim.

I cleaned up a lot of self-promotional hooey, the sort of thing that creeps into biographical entries when they are obviously written by the people profiled. It's important to ensure Wikipedia doesn't become a collection of resumes. I also added the one important matter that distinguishes Palmer from virtually all the other libertarians profiled on this site: his position on the Iraq war.

Do you consider his education background "Hooey"? That is standard biographical info. Stating that a certain position is unusual is a POV and needs to be attributed. Please read the wikipedia:five pillars to see our core policies, including neutral point of view. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

A standard biography does not run on for thousands of words. And I would refer you to the same neutral point of view policy. You obviously are not neutral, although why this guy has been such a cause for controversy must remain a mystery, at least to me.

I don't want to tell you how to count, but this article has 638 words, not "thousands." Meanwhile, please sign and date your tlk page contributiosn by adding four tildes (~) at the end. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that the entry on a relative unknown, such as Tom Palmer, should run longer than that of Murray Rothbard, and rival in length and detail the entries on Hayek, von Mises, and other giants of libertarianism. I have cut down this article and attempted to add information that the original author -- obviously Palmer himself -- did not wish to see include. I might point out that the practice of subjects writing their own entries is quite beyond the pale -- or should be. Rothbard 19:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to keep rolling back your edits, Rothbard, but you keep removing factual, sourced info. If you think that the Murray Rothbard entry should be longer then go add information to it rather than cutting down this one. As for editing the articles about oneself or one's school, yes, we've had a lot of problems with that recently. And yes, it almost always causes problems. The first step in the process is to ask "the room" whether the subject is editing the article and, if so, to ask him to please identify himself. Is Tom G. Palmer present? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The real question is: is Tom Palmer's mother present?

The removal of the material relating to Palmer's position on the Iraq war is outrageous. It is documented from his own blog, and your attempt to "edit" reality is contrary the rules and spirit of Wikipedia.


Concur. I'm going to have to side with the "more (cited/supported) information is better" in most cases, including this one. Please don't needlessly hack and chop based on other entries. If we have factual NPOV info to present, please include it while adhering to NPOV, and cite the source. "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed whom!" --Dymaxion 04:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I must object to the edits of my material, all of which is sourced, and all of which is relevant. Either Willmcw or Tom Palmer himself is deleting documented material on account of a clear bias. It is obvious, furthermore, that Palmer himself clearly wrote the original version of this entry, which is nearly identical to the one posted on his personal weblog, or else someone who is simply determined to substitute puffery for a real biographical entry. The notice at the top of the entry says it needs editing, yet every attempt to edit it is vandalized. What gives? I appeal to whatever rules may exist designed to preserve Wikipedia's objectivity to keep this vandal from persisting. -Rothbard 21:11, September 21, 2005 (UTC)

We cannot accept material that makes unproiven, and unprovable, assertions such as "Unlike most libertarians,..." Unless we have some knowledgable source for what "most libertarians" believe, we should not include comments like that in the encyclopedia. See wikipedia:cite your sources and wikipedia:avoid weasel words. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
It is absurd to say that the libertarian committment to a noninterventionist foreign policy is "unprovable," and right there "Willmcw" shows his ideological bias. One has only to refer to the Libertarian Party platform, and/or the Wikipedia entry on the Libertarian Party on libertarianism in general, to see that this assertion is nonsense. Libertarians have a clear foreign policy position, which is, as Wikipedia itself states, "absolute nonintervention." If Tom Palmer has any importance at all -- and that is highly debatable -- it is as a the only visible libertarian advocate of "winning" the war in Iraq. I have cited sources for each and every assertion I have made, and yet the vandalism continues. I would also note that this appears to be an organized effort, as "RBrancusi" committed the vandalism that "Williammcw" is defending.
One should note that when one checks the sources that "Rothbard" links to, they do not support the contentions that they are intended to support. That is a clear problem with the intended edits. I read various versions of "Rothbard" changes and found that at most one could write that in April 2004 Palmer opposed immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, but not that he is "against" withdrawal of foreign troops. Moreover, most of the sources are to a site run by Justin Raimondo (on whose own entry "Rothbard" has spent much time editing, I see), who has a personal feud and strong POV regarding Palmer. Indicating controversy in some way is useful but masking it in the form of encyclopedia entries is a different affair. Maintaining NPOV is important to sustaining the reliability of an encyclopedia. "Rothbard" in his edits has committed systematically vandalism against this entry.--RBrancusi 15:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. Palmer clearly states on his blog that he opposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and I cite his blog writings to back it up. I have therefore restored the sections vandalized by "RBrancusi," whose efforts on behalf of Palmer -- if he isn't Palmer himself -- are tireless. I have not used a single entry from Antiwar.com, the site "Brancusi" refers to, as a citation except in a general cite at the very end of the entry. All other statements attributed to Palmer himself are from his own personal blog, which is, by the way, the only place where he writings seem to appear. I would add that all attempts to trim down this entry have been rebuffed by the Tom Palmer Fan Club, of which "Brancusi" seems to be an official, in spite of the notice exhorting us to trim it or otherwise edit it down to a reasonable size. I would point out in particular that the deletion of all critical references to Palmer in the External Links section is telling: "Brancusi" brings a POV to this entry that is inappropriate and distorting of its subject. In short, precisely the sort of behavior that ought to be strongly discouraged. If we can't edit the entry, if no criticism of the subject is allowed, and if every attempt to correct errors is vandalized, then why have Wikipedia at all? --Rothbard 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is rather annoying. "Rothbard" is clearly vandalising the entry with the intent to attack Palmer. It's a shame that he's misusing a fine tool like the Wikipedia to pursue his personal feud with Palmer. --Menger

I have no "personal feud" with Palmer, never having met him. I have a problem, however, with people who make up phony Wikipedia identities -- there is no Wikipedia user named "Menger" -- and try to give the appearance of an "objective" opinion.

'Rothbard' vandalism on this entry is an attack on Wikipedia neutrality. I have added the site to watch list, as it seems others, too, because one person is vandalizing site and linking to unsubstantiated claims apparently written by the same person. I checked each link and none supported claim made in the text changes made by 'Rothbard'. Palmer was opposed to immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops in April 2004, but that does not justify saying that he is "opposed" to withdrawal. Words like 'immediate' and 'now' have meaning and should not be used to distort a meaning. ('Immediate' in April 2004 is not the same as 'immediate' in September 2005.) The so-called "Palmer Plan" was taken from a sentence out of context, as I contacted Dr Palmer and he pointed me to full context here: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018290.php. That is dishonest to take a sentence out of context, call it a "plan" and then insert into an encyclopedia entry. If posting criticism (and why not?), criticisms should be honest ones. Also the claim that he wantes 'the U.S. to stay until the insurgents are militarily defeated" links to an entry on Justin Raimondo's web site (who has a vendetta against Palmer) that then links to a short entry about terrorists in Saudi Arabia who cut off the head of an American worker there, not about insurgents in Iraq. Again, that is not good policy or appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Insurgents in Iraq were not mentioned even once there. An encyclopedia should provide a reliable source of information presented from a neutral point of view, not an opportunity to carry out a personal feud, as "Rothbard" (who seems likely to be Justin Raimondo, as same person made many edits on Raimondo entry in Wikipedia, or at least very close to him; also 'Rothbard' in comments above has taken credit for unsigned changes, so it looks like unsigned changes are from him, too) has done, first trying to delete such items as educational background, then deleting more material, then adding claims that are not, as one finds when following them, even true. The 'Rothbard' vandalism against this entry is discouraging for reliability of Wikipedia entries and should be combated. I am asking others to put this entry on Watchlists to check for more vandalism. Honest criticism and links to criticisms are of course part of honest entries, but the 'Rothbard' changes do not meet such a test.--RBrancusi 19:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I was alerted to the monomaniacal and intense efforts to disfigure this entry, all evidently from one person with quite obviously too much time on his hands. After going through the various changes I found that the "Rothbard" changes (and those that are almost surely the same person without signing on) are a part of a hate campaign. First Rothbard takes down the educational list, which, as noted above, is certainly a standard feature of a biography. Then he complains that it is "thousands of words". Then that it is longer than an entry on someone else. Then he follows with change after change to introduce his own point of view, his attacks, etc. When those are rolled back, he comes back and deletes material that is historically interesting and relevant, regarding Palmer's efforts in communist ruled countries to spread liberalism. And he adds back distortions of Palmer's views on Iraq, as is evident to people who take the time to review the links. It would not be a problem to indicate that Palmer's views are sometiems controversial, but to have the author of the attacks put those attacks in himself as claims of fact, although they are not supported by documentation, even on the web sites to which he links! Something very strange is going on here. Wikipedia is not a place for people to launch revenge attacks. We all use it as a source of information, although the sort of attacks from Rothbard show that its wise to be cautious when reading it. I intend to visit this site occasionally and ensure that it serves the function of being a reference, based on Wikipedia standards of a NPOV. --Sajita 03:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a resume, written originally by Palmer himself, and not an encyclopedia entry. There is a notice at the top that invites editing, yet every attempt to do so is met with rebuffs from the author and his friends. All references aside from those to his employer (Cato Institute) and his own personal blog are deleted: there is to be no criticism or even an outside view of the subject. The above author -- who has never made a Wikipedia contribution other than to this entry -- claims that I am the author of "attacks" on Palmer, which is not true, and no evidence is offered to back up the claim. I have nothing against Palmer: what I resent is the attempt to insert a vanity entry and then have to endure a campaign of hysterical accusations (see above) when corrections are made. Palmer's chief significance is that he takes an unorthodox view (for a libertarian) on the Iraq war. Other than that, he's not that notable. Shorn of this information, his entry as it stands is a pure puff piece. --Rothbard 04:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Rothbard, so-called, has shown a desire to disfigure this entry repeatedly. If it was about adding criticisms, that would be unobjectionable, although criticisms should be fair and not mere personal attacks. That is why I put back in the criticism (real criticism) of Jeffrey Friedman, which Rothbard in fact deleted. The attacker in the attack Rothbard substituted is the same person who calls the subject of the entry a "butt boy," (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5936) which is a very personal and disgusting attack and not a critique of his views or his projects. Rothbard says he has "nothing against Palmer," but also shows that he thinks exactly like the one (Raimondo) who called Palmer in print a "butt boy" and who distorted his views by taking one sentence out of context and calling it a "plan." That is not a criticism; it is a slander and not appropriate for an online encyclopedia. It may be the opinion of Rothbard that the only thing notable about Palmer is that he disagrees with Justin Raimondo about war with Iraq (which he also opposed, anyway). That may be why he deleted all mention of Palmer's work in Eastern Europe and work with liberals all over Eastern Europe in the last days of the Soviet Union. But if that is the only thing Rothbard thinks is important, why did Rothbard earlier delete mention of Palmer's Oxford Ph.D, which is a normal part of a biography? And why the insertion of false claims and strongly biased Point of View? The behavior of Rothbard, by repeatedly disfiguring this site, contradicts the claim that he "has nothing against Palmer." --Sajita 20:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
"Sajita" is having hysterics, and, besides that, is barely coherent. Nowhere do I call anyone a "butt boy," nor does the phrase appear in any links provided by me. I deleted Palmer's alleged exploits "smuggling" whatever into Eastern Europe because it is not document or backed up by any links. If Wikipedia is not to become a sounding board for everyone's mystery achievements -- to take a phrase from Debbie Harry -- we have to stick what we know for sure and can *show* is factual. I am not sure why Sajita is making such a big issue out of Justin Raimondo, but this seems like a diversion away from the real issue: the determination of Palmer and his friends to define all criticism of Palmer as a "personal attack." I see nothing personal in the material I have linked to, and the text itself takes no position on the veracity of these criticisms: it merely makes note of them. Sorry if this offends "Sajita," but if Palmer is going to write his resume and insist that it be posted as an encyclopedia entry on Wikipedia, then it is going to take on a form that he has no control over.
"Rothbard" has not called anyone a "butt boy" but the person he links to as a critic of a supposed Palmer "plan" has, a fact that undermines his credibility and shows his personal bias. In any case, I fail to see the relevance of the additions "Rothbard" has repeatdly tried to introduce in a bio. Evidence of Palmer's work in Eastern Europe (a publicly known fact) has already been provided in the latest edit. Rothbard's mailicious edits (see the historial of his edits) clearly shows he seeks nothing more than to vandalize the entry in any way he can.

I always hate to step in the middle of a good mud-slinging fest, for fear of getting splattered, but I have to say I read this talkback page, I looked through some of the history, and I thought about this, and I don't think any of the players here are trying to vandalise. It looks to me like two organised gangs of editors that BOTH have a problem understanding NPOV. A cooldown or maybe this article should just be deleted? It does seem to be true that the subject is of very marginal importance... Arker 04:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree: this article should be deleted. The subject is of little importance, aside from his unorthodox approach to libertarian foreign policy theory. Since any attempt to introduce this subject is met with fierce resistance, I would just as soon junk it. In addition, the organized effort to keep deleting any links that might document a different view of the author's view is quite telling. The ONLY links allowable are apparently those that refer the reader to Palmer's own blog. Anything else is deemed a "personal attack." Against such determined subjectivism, the only solution is deletion. I am not, by the way, Justin Raimondo. Rothbard 12:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


It is obvious now that "Rothbard" is Juistin Raimondo, for a simple reason. He has made extensive edits (in terms of adding material) to Raimondo page, but has only made deletions and distortions to a page of someone Raimondo hates and has vilified in disgusting language. I disagree with Arker; the malicious edits are made by one person, under the name of "Rothbard." (Raimondo is on his page cited as author of a biography of Rothbard.) Palmer, if you like him or hate him, helped greatly to spread classical liberal ideas in the Soviet Empire and is well known for that; he is one of the few libertarians now active in the Arabic world, as well. In addition, he has written on many topics and has been a notable figure in the classical liberal movement. He made some critical comments under his own name on Justin Raimondo for his views, and now Raimondo is seeking revenge and every day changes this entry to disfigure and distort it. Note that others have not made similar attacks on Raimondo, even if they disagree with him. Rothbard-Raimondo has made it clear that he will use any reason to attack Palmer and to disfigure this Wikipedia entry, all in violation of the purposes of Wikipedia, which create open exchange of information and ideas. Sajita 06:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it obvious to any reasonable person that "Rothbard" is Raimondo (it wouldn't be the first time that Raimondo had written under a pseudonym while denying it), but it is plainly obvious as well that Rothbard/Raimondo has nothing to offer to this page (or, indeed, Wikipedia) than attacks and smears. Further, it is obvious that Raimondo and his ilk are content to spend their days making sure Dr. Palmer's page stays vandalized. I've edited the page a number of times, both to clean up the grammar, and to make sure that reasonable criticism--and not advertisements to kooky websites--appear. I linked to Jeffrey Friedman's criticism of Palmer and libertarianism, and that criticism is both reasonable and pertinent to the page. Rothbard, however, would rather delete that criticism, and in its place put a link to his own take on "the Palmer plan" for Iraq (which is not a plan at all, and is taken wholly out of context on Raimondo's, errr, Rothbard's webpage. In short, if Palmer's enemies would refrain from deleting legitimate content (i.e., Palmer's work in eastern Europe, for which I provided documentation; Friedman's criticism, etc.), and refrain from linking to irrelevant asides that happen to appear on their own websites, this page would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia and libertarianism.--Freemarkets 11:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The paranoia exhibited in the above remarks -- "enemies," "vandalized," and the description of any website other than Palmer's own blog as "kooky" -- requires no comment from me, except to say that any claim these people are even trying to be objective seems self-evidently foolish.
Not "any other website," Justin. Just yours. And "enemy" seems appropriate given the enormous number of hours you must spend making sure that Dr. Palmer's page remains tainted with false claims and non-neutral commentary. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I am being objective with respect to the content of the page. As I mentioned before, I included factual claims about Dr. Palmer, and added a reasonable criticism (that came from Critical Review, not Palmer's blog).--Freemarkets 16:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
A few points: 1) I am not "Justin," 2) How is deleting all references outside of Tom Palmer's own blog and the website of his employer "objective"? and 3) Where specifically in the text of this entry as edited by me is there anything "non-neutral"? Palmer's views on Iraq are documented in his own words, which are cited in the text. That these views are controversial within the libertarian movement is similarly undeniable. The language I use is purely descriptive. I can't for the life of me understand why any of this is being disputed. Rothbard 17:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] A view of what an encyclopedia entry should look like

I think this is becoming the most talked about topic in the Wikipedia, if it isn't already. It surprises me to see how many people are involved in this little battle. In fact, it's so interesting I've decided to get involved as well.

The entry is by no means relevant as it is now. We can't even begin to talk about NPOV and relevance of information when words like "butt boy" and "hooey" are so frequent in these pages. Even so, I don't think it should be deleted.

I have a rather clear idea of what a useful Wikipedia page should look like. Although I don't intend to edit the entry myself (yet) I will share my views with you. I will assume that none of us have any ulterior motives.

It is generally very good to stick to the facts. Things like education, activity, visits to foreign countries and so on which can be factually proved fit very well in this category. The removal of such information which happened early in the history of this entry is something I simply can't understand.

Considering that we are talking about a living person I don't know if you should be focusing so much on his ideology. Think about it for a second. When we discuss the ideas of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Julius Caesar and so on, we do so by weighing their life's work through careful studies and choosing those things which made a difference. Tom Palmer might not even have decided on some issues yet. Reduction ad absurdum: What will happen with all your hard work if Tom Palmer suddenly decides to become a Muslim extremist? He's got all the time in the world to change his mind, you know. You guys are just wasting your time discussing his recent writings, especially since you seem to be focusing on tiny quotes from tiny articles and not major works. The kind of information I've seen in these pages belongs in tabloids, not in an encyclopedia. Chrisn 19:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits to the page in the spirit of bringing the discussion back to more neutral territory while keeping the spirit of the original passage. In the place of sweeping generalizations and unjustified claims, I put a neutral description of Dr. Palmer's views on Iraq and the war on terror. Additionally, I put a link to Dr. Palmer's rebuttal to Justin Raimondo's critique of what he (I think erroneously) calls the "Palmer Plan." I think these changes are reasonable, and they reflect a neutral point of view, all while including criticisms and rebuttals of Dr. Palmer's ideas. Finally, I believe they reflect the mission of Wikipedia. Hopefully all readers will recognize these changes as such, and will support keeping the page as it is.--Freemarkets 14:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have never seen such a determined effort to "spin" an encyclopedia entry in Wikipedia. I have returned the page to the original as edited by Willmcw.
How isproviding a link to rebuttal to an attack a case of 'spin'? 'Free Market' made reasonable compromise to include 'Rothbard'/Raimondo attacks (unfair, it seems, for it never links to anything that Palmer said and itself provides no documentation) by offer of Palmer response. That is not 'spin', it is balance and consistent with NPOV. 'Rothbard' is attempting simply to defame and not to promote Wikipedia/encyclopedia function, which is to inform.RBrancusi 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have now included attack links and response links (or links to original statements), which should satisfy everybody. If link is made to attack, it is reasonable and consistent with Wikipedia NPOV approach to include also link to original statement or to rebuttal. If 'Rothbard' is not happy with that, we then know his real motivation, as also shown earlier by attempt to delete educational history and other features of this biography. RBrancusi 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It is now official. I made changes to include attack links and response links and 'Rothbard' merely changed back and deleted response links. He makes strong POV statement ('most visible role' is very subjective - most visible to whom?, for example) and deletes all attempt at balance to achieve NPOV. That is vandalism, not any attempt to use Wikipedia to inform people. RBrancusi 16:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The use of such words as "attack," "motivation," and the invocation of persons who are not even involved in this discussion should illustrate that the "editing" changes introduced by "Brancusi" and "Free Markets" come with a definite POV, and are contrary to the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. I have done my best to restore the entry to the version created by Willmcw. Rothbard 17:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I made some edits to this page to remove the "Iraq Controversy" section. It's complete BS. There's no controversy. Aside from that, it's fine. Jstrummer 02:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately you aren't the final arbiter as to what constitutes "BS." I find it ... odd that a legion of people who have never contributed to Wikipedia suddenly show up to "edit" Tom Palmer's entry. The controversy is documented in the links provided. It's bad enough that Palmer wrote his own entry -- if his pals continue their weird campaign to rewrite reality, they will wind up embarrassing both Palmer and themselves. Rothbard 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that the latest act of vandalism from the Tom Palmer Fan Club doesn't even come with an attempt to justify itself -- someone calling themselves "Strummer" (who has never done any Wikipedia work before this) simply goes in, chops and cuts out the offending paragraph, and cuts and runs. I appeal to the Wikipedia community to put a stop to this. Rothbard 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is odd that one person is not a judge of what constitutes BS, but one other person always is, that is, the same person who repeatedly vandalizes a site, namely, Rothbard, who is also arbiter of what is a "most visible role" (visible to whom, please?), and whether educational attainments shuld be in a biography. This a case of a vendetta by one person (Rothbard), who assumes that only unsourced and personal attacks are documentation and who knows what is and is not a controversy. He writes interpretation of a statement on an issue of current news from a person's website, but when you read the linked article, it does not support how 'Rothbard' described it. That is simply not honest. For example, there is a difference in all languages I know between past tense and present tense, but 'Rothbard' writes of Palmer that he "opposes" an immediate withdrawal, but then only provides a link to a statement opposing immediate withdrawal 1.5 years ago! That justifies writing that he "opposed in April 2004," not that he "opposes," which is present tense. Or does 'Rothbard' also read minds? Also, he assumes he knows what others have edited, but evidently he doesn't. If he insists on putting into an encyclopedia vicious personal attacks and then assumes a position of hurt innocence, why does he refuse to allow simple link to rebuttal from the victim? And why, if he is a hurt innocent, did he try to delete such things as educational attainments from a biography and also well documented history of a person who did much to introduce classical liberalism to the communist countries? We know that Palmer was responsible for first non-Marxist economics textbooks in use in universities in numerous countries and for helping to establish think-tanks in numerous countries, such as Liberalini Institut in Prag and other organizations. But 'Rothbard' insisted to delete all such mention of work in Eastern Europe. Why, if not pure vandalism? I am not the only person who is shocked and even angry because of pure hate-filled attacks on a Wikipedia entry. I don't know about "Tom Palmer fan club," as opposed to people who are unwilling to let vandalism persist in an informational source, but I do know that there is a "Tom Palmer hate club" made up of the person who signs in as 'Rothbard.'RBrancusi 20:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Tom Palmer's, which is one reason why I don't like to see his page vandalized with sweeping generalities, false inferences, and links to out-of-context criticisms, especially when rebuttals to such attacks are quickly deleted by the author of the attacks himself. I'm also a fan of the Wikipedia project, which is another reason I don't like to see these things happen. There is nothing wrong with including criticism of Palmer's views; he's a public person, and as such those things are fair game. But if such criticism is out of context, and no rebuttals are allowed, then it's out of bounds and shouldn't be included. That's why I think it's reasonable to include the Friedman criticism, but I deleted Raimondo's. Further, including references to how Palmer's views are inconsistent with the LP platform is silly and useless. It's also completely non-neutral.

Finally, I don't know why Raimondo is upset that Dr. Plamer might have a "fan club" (I've never attended a meeting of that club, but I'm told it numbers in the many thousands in and around the DC area). My only guess is that he isn't important enough, or taken seriously enough, to have one himself. In any event, the existence of such a fan club shouldn't affect how this page is edited.--Freemarkets 21:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the problem with this page. We have one, or two, or however many people (it's hard to tell, a lot of the editors here look like sockpuppets) that really hate this guys guts, and want to get there gripes into the article. We have another one, or two, or however many that are 'fans' of him and can't stand to have this page be anything but a glowing love-fest on the guy, and keep reverting any critical edits. And no one else cares. In fact, I'd bet that no one but the squabbling editors and a few like me that have noticed it because of the squabbling and constant reversions has ever even visited the page. Arker 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the editors certainly talk like sock-puppets, although what they are trying to prove is not clear. Palmer's views on Iraq are clear enough: I quoted them in the disputed text. Whether or not one agrees with them -- and I have not said what my own view is -- they ought to be cited. Cato is a major thinktank, and Palmer is a major figure there: if Cato is looking more favorably on the Iraq war, then that needs to be put in the public record, of which Wikipedia is an increasingly important part. The idea that I am taking Palmer's words "out of context" is nonsense: I cite his words and link to the source, which is his own weblog. The juvenile meanderings of "Brancusi" and "Free Markets" are beside the point: if they admire Palmer, they won't want this important aspect of his views to be ignored. Rothbard 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody commented on my last entry so I presumed everybody agreed on the role of an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia is an "increasingly important part of the public record" as you said yourself, Rothbard, but it is an Encyclopedia. Please look up the word in a dictionary.

Discussions about current events and current policies belong in newspapers and on forums, not here. You cannot say for sure how Tom Palmer or Cato are looking on the Iraq War or any other issue for that matter. Even if they told you themselves it still wouldn't be reliable information because only time will tell. Chrisn 17:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are looking for someone to disagree with you then I'm your man. World Book and EB both issued year books to update their information. Wikipedia, a 21st century digital encyclopedia, goes even further by updating contiuously. We have articles on all sorts of ongoing events, such as disasters, political scandals, sporting events, etc. We include current information on current events and current opinions. As for subjects whose ideologies change, the articles can change too. If Palmer was once a Hindu and becomes a Muslim then we don't have to wipe out the Hindu part, we can simply add the Muslim aspect. In seventy years, after Palmer and the rest of us are all dead, we can write a more definitive summary of his life and works. In the meantime we'll just have to struggle along as best we can, producing an article which is of use to readers today. Finally, I'm curious how you have developed such strong opinions about how Wikipedia articles should look since you have apparently never edited one. Feel free to become an editor yourself. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The entry of yet another Palmer sock-puppet onto the scene shows just how dishonest the "editing" attempts since Willmcw's admirable edit have been. I would point to the addition of the nonsequiteur "but Palmer is not affiliated with the U.S. Libertarian Party" as particularly telling: mentioning the LP at all was meant, if I'm not mistaken, to indicate why Palmer's views on Iraq are considered controversial in the libertarian movement in general, without attributing antiwar sentiment to all libertarians without exception. All the other additions by our latest anonymous editor were designed to put Palmer in the best possible light. If this sort of vandalism continues, I'm wondering: is there a way to arbitrate or decide this issue? I'm also wondering if it is possible to simply delete the entry completely, which is another (albeit less attractive) option. -Rothbard 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to anarchy in action.

You can mark it for deletion quite easily. However, as it's already gone that route once before, and stayed because of a 'hung jury' result, that might not be in accord with the customary (dare I say 'common?') laws here. I'm not confident enough in my understanding of the process to say, or I might have done it myself already. There is a mediation option also, I recommend starting here and doing some reading before acting however. Arker 05:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No anonymous "sock-puppet" here. All edits undertaken with the IP 24.119.184.135 are my work. I've never had a registered Wiki user account before tonight because I've never needed one; my only edits in the past have been few, and mostly grammatical in nature. I came across this entry yesterday, and while it's true that I'm acquainted with Tom Palmer (and have written nice things about him), my edits were intended only to bring proper context to an entry that was apparently designed to cast the subject in an explicitly negative light by omitting such explanatory context outright. There's nothing wrong with bringing up any topic that is notable with regards to the subject of the entry, particularly something Palmer is as well-known for as his position on Iraq, but the original entry left out crucial information and as a result misstated Palmer's actual views. Eric.d.dixon 06:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Although you subsequently deleted this, I'm restoring it because I think this actually is enlightening in terms of understanding why y'all keep up this edit war.

"The way it was previously worded would make it seem to non-libertarians that Palmer's views had contravened some kind of libertarian litmus test, negating any claim Palmer might have to the term "libertarian." This is clearly not the case, so a revision was in order. If anyone has a better idea for a revision that would make this point, be my guest. Eric.d.dixon 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)"

If I'm not horribly mistaken, that is exactly what the fight is about. The man works for a libertarian think tank, and has publically taken positions that many libertarians feel are explicitly anti-libertarian, so he's become a bit of a lightning rod on that issue, correct? So we have a group that wants the article to let people know he's not really a libertarian, and another group that thinks that message is 'clearly' incorrect, and wikipedia has become a battleground for the turf war, am I grokking this right? Arker 08:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't delete it; Willmcw moved it to a new section below. You're grokking this sort of correctly, but with an important distinction. "Libertarian" is not synonymous with "Libertarian Party." Holding a position that contradicts the Libertarian Party platform is not even remotely evidence of having a lack of "libertarian" principles or ideals (although the two may very well coincide). Part of what makes this particular section of the entry notable is that the editors who seem to dislike Palmer try to paint him as a non-libertarian by omitting his own rationale for his views. One can hold a view that is non-traditional within a movement, but arrive at that view by a particular application of the principles that define that movement. In this case, Palmer's detractors point out that Palmer is in favor of continuing the Iraqi occupation for now, because intervention in foreign affairs is not traditionally a libertarian position. But they don't want the article to mention that Palmer takes this position because he thinks a continued occupation at present will result in a lower overall death toll than if we retreated unilaterally right now. Palmer may be wrong in this belief, but the inclination to minimize the loss of life that results from government action is a libertarian premise; in this case, it has led to a conclusion that is seen as non-traditional in many libertarian circles. I'd say that this is *all* relevant for the entry. The caveats are necessary information in presenting Palmer's views accurately, if in fact this article is intended to present a summary of Palmer's views. Eric.d.dixon 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I see where he moved it to now. I also indented your paragraph above, for readability, drives me crazy when it's all in one line, hope you don't mind, if you do just revert it I guess, but it really makes it easier for me to keep track...
As I recall, the reason the LP reference got added was that someone (probably Rothbard) had in an earlier revision of the paragraph said something along the lines of his position was seen by many as contradicting Libertarian principles, and he got jumped on for putting in an unsupported assertion instead of reporting sources, so he added that as a source in a subsequent revision. If you care enough to sort back through it you could get the details there...
At any rate, I don't think this is really the appropriate place for the larger argument to be held. What's appropriate here is a simple Encyclopedia entry, with a neutral point of view and honestly I think one result of this long-running edit war has been that, as each side tries to counter the criticisms of the other more and more material keeps getting added to the mix, well it usually gets deleted immediately, then reverted, but the upshot over time is that the article has gotten a lot longer than (I think) it needs to be.
Can we all somehow agree to pare the thing back to a minimum, note that his position on Iraq is deeply controversial, and move on? At some point in the not-too-distant future? Or is this edit war going to rage for the next decade? Arker 09:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The indentation is fine. I agree it's ridiculous that this entry has been the subject of this much debate and scrutiny, and as a sporadic (and, I suppose, unofficial) Wikipedia contributor before now it's really not my place to say what does or does not belong in a legitimate entry. But reading back on this page, one of Palmer's detractors tried to make the case that Palmer was *only* notable because of his Iraq views. As much as I think that's an absurd statement, assuming it's true then it's important to get those views right. Present the views, present his rationale, present criticism of the views *and* the rationale. I think the debate up to this point has been each side attempting to present criticism in lieu of rationale, or rationale in lieu of criticism. There's no reason the article shouldn't contain both, as far as I can tell. Eric.d.dixon 09:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian Party

Incidentally, I'm not sure why adding a caveat about Palmer's non-affiliation with the Libertarian Party would be seen as a non-sequitur; the LP platform doesn't represent the views of the majority of libertarians. The way it was previously worded would make it seem to non-libertarians that Palmer's views had contravened some kind of libertarian litmus test, negating any claim Palmer might have to the term "libertarian." This is clearly not the case, so a revision was in order. If anyone has a better idea for a revision that would make this point, be my guest. Eric.d.dixon 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should drop all references to the Libtertarian Party and focus on Palmer. A similar problem occurred on the Bill Maher article, in which some of his view were called libertarian, and then subsequently deleted entirely by others who said they weren't libtertarian ideas after all. People come to this article to learn about Palmer, not the Libertarian Party. Let's summarize, in an NPOV manner, the verifiable info about him and let readers decide for themselves about whether he follows a party line. -Willmcw 07:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I left the reference to the Libertarian Party there because the LP is a notable libertarian organization, probably the one that springs first to the minds of non-libertarians when they hear the term "libertarian." This being the case, a particular libertarian's views as measured against the party's platform might be considered relevant -- a kind of well-known benchmark, if you will. But although the LP is notable, it's not the *most* notable libertarian organization, nor does it encompass a majority of the libertarian movement, which is largely an amalgam of competing philosophical views that often share some common conclusions about politics. Eric.d.dixon 08:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
To observe that the Cato Institute is a libertarian organization, and that this organization stands for withdrawing our forces from Iraq, is not bringing any POV to the subject: it is a statement of fact. It is also a statement of fact that libertarianism seeks to minimize state action. It is therefore unusual when ostensible libertarians support state action, especially such a ... strenuous action as a war. People will die if we withdraw from Iraq, therefore Palmer is opposed, in order to "save lives." But people will die if all welfare is abolished, yet somehow the "people will die" argument doesn't get raised in that instance. Many libertarians find Palmer's views unorthodox, and it is not bringing a POV to the subject to note this. I agree that this entry is not perfect: that is what comes of having the subject write the entry himself, as if it were a job application. A note about using the Libertarian Part as a benchmark: here is an organization that has existed since the early 1970s, and has been continuously discussing, debating, and refining its platform, and yet it is treated as if it is insignificant when it comes to libertarianism. That's nonsense. I lieu of a better alternative, I have restored the original passage. Rothbard 09:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen other articles on prominent libertarians that compare their political views to those of the LP (except the bad example of Maher). I suppose that if it is appropriate for Palmer then it would be appropriate for others as well. I think it's a bad idea. -Willmcw 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Providing Context

The Libertarian Party reference isn't the only problem with that section of the entry as it originally stood. It was grossly inaccurate in a couple of other places. First, Palmer hasn't denounced "the antiwar movement," he has denounced a few very specific people within that movement. Justin Raimondo and antiwar.com do not constitute the antiwar movement; they don't even constitute a representative sample. And the reason for this denunciation is entirely relevant -- he sees them as rooting for those who kill American soldiers. The entry as originally written makes it seem as though Palmer condemns those who call for peace, when in fact he condemns those he sees as celebrating the loss of American life. This is also not his "most visible role"; that would have to be his actual work in Iraq, attempting to spread ideas. Second, Palmer's quote to "find and kill all of them" does not apply to all insurgents, as the original entry would make it seem. The quote comes from an entry in Palmer's weblog responding to a beheading in Saudi Arabia, and is about "radical Islamicist" terrorism, not about insurgents in Iraq. Finally, Palmer's opinion doesn't fully "contradict" the Cato Institute's opinion, but differs on the length of time he thinks may be necessary. Palmer has said he doesn't want a long occupation, but that he wants a safe retreat. Perhaps Palmer places more importance on the safety of the retreat than the authors of the study Cato commissioned, but this doesn't indicate that Palmer likes the occupation in any kind of imperialist or nation-building sense. I have reverted the entry back to my edited version, and will continue to do so unless someone can tell me how providing this context is incompatible with NPOV. Eric.d.dixon 17:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If Eric Dixon -- who, on his weblog, declares that "Tom Palmer rules!" -- will bother to read the link provided (to Palmer's own website), he will notice that Palmer there attacks not only libertarians who oppose the war, but also Janes Fonda and the Vietnam era antiwar movement. Thus my text referring to Palmer attacking the antiwar movement per se, rather than just "factions" of it, as per Dixon et al. Palmer's opposition to the insurgency in Iraq is well-known, and he makes no bones about it -- and also makes no distinctions between Al Qaeda and homegrown Iraqi insurgents. Since I am describing what he writes, rather than judging it, I made no such distinctions, either. To say that Palmer doesn't support "nation-building," and then to say that he has gone to Iraq -- twice -- to support the Iraqi government is disingenuous, to say the least. Again, I take no position on whether or no his views are correct: I have my own opinion, but that is neither here nor there. What I resent, however, is this parsing and spinning designed to make Palmer look either "good" or "bad" (depending on one's viewpoint.Rothbard 18:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Also indented you Rothbard, again hope you don't mind, just trying to keep it so it will be clear later who replied to whom.
Eric - one of the few real hard and fast, no interpretation involved rules here is the three revert rule. It's intended to stop reversion wars from getting out of hand, and you could get in trouble taking that route real quick. Please read the dispute resolution page I linked in a recent reply to Rothbard above. It's preferred when we have a situation like this that *both* sides attempt to restrain themselves from reflexively reverting, and instead seek to come to an agreement here on the talk page.
Now, as I've been trying to emphasise, this is not the place for the underlying disagreements here to be solved. It's entirely outside the scope, as I understand it at least, of the encyclopedia entry to tell the reader who is right about such disputes.
I'm still not convinced the entry belongs here at all, the general rule on biographical entries is sometimes referred to as the professor rule - and the basic gist of it is that the world is full of college professors who have a list of academic qualifications, published works, accolades and awards, who have taken part in various conferences and symposia, etc. - and that is NOT enough to warrant an entry here. There must be something more, of more-or-less general interest, for there to be a need for an encyclopedia entry. Looking this over it seems to me, personally, that the main possibility for 'something more' in this case is the controversy over his position on Iraq. So ignoring it entirely doesn't seem to be sensible.
Equally insensible, however, is an entry that pushes the point of view of one side or another. And competing edits and added material to flesh out the dispute more looks to me to just be resulting in an entry that pushes BOTH points of view, alternately. I'm not sure that's an improvement. I'd really like to see the thing just note that it's controversial and perhaps give a very brief explanation of why and move on. I would hope that it might be possible for the squabbling sides to agree on such a passage, as long as it is relatively short and doesn't go into too much detail. I'm afraid that the sides here will never agree on any passage on the subject which doesn't meet that criteria.
You point out that neither the LP nor antiwar.com necessarily represent all libertarians - doubtless that's true. However, wouldn't it be fair to say that they represent a rather substantial portion between them? This is my impression, at least, so any attempt to claim that they are insignificant and should be ignored on the question is going to look rather disingenuous to me.
Finally, there are a lot of complaints about Palmers views being misrepresented, but when you imply that antiwar.com celebrates the deaths of US soldiers I'm thinking, 'pot, meet kettle.' A brief search of the site brings up nothing that seems to back up that claim, and countless instances where the explicit message is that the positions they promote are justified, in large part, by the desire to cap the rising death toll amongst US soldiers. I do think some of the detractors edits were not very professional or neutral, but in the admittedly short time I've been monitoring the article, I haven't seen anything from them as remotely over the top as to suggest that the other side was throwing parties and cheering when US Soldiers die. Arker 21:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
"I will stand up proudly for it. I have cheered on men attacking US troops. I will continue to cheer any defeat US troops meet."--Jeremy Sapienza, senior editor, antiwar.com--Freemarkets 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
"Arker" may have a point, but is there not a difference between making a charge under one's own name (as Dr. Palmer charged certain people with supporting killing US troops, and "toasting" their deaths) and inserting charges into an unsigned encyclopedia? They seem very different to me. The first may be true or not (I disagree with "Arker" on that; calling Iraqi police "traitors" and offering "toasts" besides pics of burned out US tanks seems very much like calling for killing them), but it is very different from disfiguring an encyclopedia entry. One could write that "Palmer has charged XXX" and "they have responded YYY", but simply putting in the charges as if they were statements of fact in unsigned encyclopedia entries is abuse of what an encyclopedia is for.Sajita 00:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The editorial policy of Antiwar.com, as far as I can tell, is pretty much summed up in this article, "Why We Fight", which states:
"The outright barbarism of the defenders of Fallujah – the beheadings, the kidnappings, the suicide bombings – is the work of a 'resistance' that is in no way admirable. The various groups that have arisen in opposition to the American occupation – the Islamists, the neo-Ba'athists, the radical Shi'ites, etc. – are all of them totalitarians of either a religious or secular cast, with the former rapidly gaining the upper hand. No American peace movement worthy of the name can give them any kind of support: they are not the 'minutemen' of Michael Moore's imagination, unless one views Patrick Henry as some sort of improbable early American ayatollah – which he was most certainly not."
I have just about had it with Mr. "Free Markets." His nonsensical attempt to slime Antiwar.com, a major website with tens of thousands of visitors daily, shows that he just isn't worth arguing with. The same goes for "Sajita." No one is "inserting charges" into anything. Palmer's words are quoted. He hasn't just attacked "certain" antiwar libertarians: he also attacked the Vietnam era antiwar movement. He calls for the military defeat of the insurgency, and says we can't leave until the U.S.-supported government is on its feet. Now one may agree or disagree with that position. But to deny that Palmer holds these views is simply blindness: he has stated them himself, on his own weblog. Again, I cannot understand why any of this is controversial. Rothbard
This shows again how dishonest one person (Rothbard) has been. Palmer criticized Jane Fonda, not the antiwar movement, and in the same article he praised Joan Baez as a principled antiwar activist. So his criticism was of "some" in the antiwar movement, who he believed were undermining its goals, not "the antiwar movement." This entire controversy has been caused by one person's (Rothbard's) attempt to interpose his own idiosyncratic point of view into Wikipedia. It is unconscionable. Mention one criticism or a hundred, whatever. But they should be factual statements and not reflect the Point of View of the editor, who evidently also shares the rather strongly rage-filled views of the critic. If you look over this controversy you'll find one person consistently trying to bend Wikipedia to his own purposes and to use it as an amplifier for his own strongly held views about another person, so strong that he started by trying to edit out Palmer's educational background ("hooey") and then cut out material on his accomplishments (too long) and then turned to adding extra material (generally contentious and non-objective [mis]characterizations of Palmer's views). It would be a shame if the person who has appropriated Rothbard's name were to get away with it.
It's interesting (and telling, perhaps) that Justin Raimondo considers the accurate quoting of an antiwar.com senior editor "sliming" his website.--Freemarkets 00:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
If I'm Justin Raimondo, then how come I'm stuck here in this little cow town in the middle of nowhere, unpublished and uncelebrated? Come off it, dude. Your monomania is getting tiresome.

The very last edit, made by someone who did not sign in, seems to me to be the basis for a reasonable compromise. I tweaked it a bit: the contention that Palmer's views have been controversial "among antiwar activists" is not true: most antiwar activists have never heard of Palmer. Only a libertarian would know his name, and even in those circles he's not exactly a household word. I changed it, therefore, to "controversial among libertarians." I also changed the part about how he's supposedly been criticized for going to Iraq and talking about "constitutionalism": that misrepresents what is clearly stated in the link provided. As I understand it, the criticism was directed at Palmer for advising the current Iraqi government, which many libertarians regard as a morally and politically questionable activity. All in all, however, a good edit, neutral in effect if not in intent. Rothbard

This is becoming very tiresome. After the last reasonable attempt at compromise to keep one person (Rothbard) happy as well as everyone else by making the language neutral, Rothbard returned to remove an important qualifying word ("some") and to change "parliament" to "government" and to delete documenting links. That shows lack of good faith and also lack of understanding of parliamentary government. Regarding the first point, to criticize a mullah or a priest is not to criticize Islam or Christianity, and to criticize one activist in a movement is not to criticize "the antiwar movement." That is simple dishonesty to claim otherwise. Regarding the second point, in a parliamentary system, the word "government" refers to prime minister and cabinet, not to members of parliament. To advise "government" you are advising the prime minister. Nothing states that Palmer ever met the prime minister, but he spoke to members of the parliament. Rothbard is perhaps no political scientist, but there is a major difference between them. Even under the American system, if someone speaks to members of the Congress, it would be dishonest to write that she or he had come to Washington to "advise the government." We had reached a compromise and Rothbard indicated that he could live with it, but he has now gone in without any reason and changed the entry to be misleading. The agenda at work seems more to defame a person than to provide neutrally articulated information. The issue is raised and it's time for Rothbard to simply back off. Others here will have to revert his attempt to introduce errors into this entry. --Sajita 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, if there's a three revert rule, "Rothbard" has long since crossed it -- in most cases without explanation. Just looking at the most recent 50 edits to the page, we can see him reverting on September 30 at 16:41, October 1 at 7:53, October 1 at 19:25, October 2 at 4:53, October 2 at 7:40, October 2 at 13:54, October 3 at 16:44, and October 3 at 20:37. If we count the reversion he made to the new "compromise" paragraph on October 4 at 14:28, that makes triple the allowed reversion count for one user, and within a five-day span. I'd check back further into the edit history, but really, isn't that way more than enough?

Second, it's been pointed out multiple times that Palmer's criticism of Raimondo and antiwar.com don't constitute a denunciation of "the antiwar movement". Throw Jane Fonda into the mix and you still don't get anywhere close to a movement, particularly when Palmer is on record as praising others within the movement. Rothbard's continuing edits on this point are dishonest to the point of absurdity.

Third, I was forthcoming from the beginning that I knew Tom and that I had written nice things about him. Still, the quote "Rothbard" pulled from my blog is also misquoted. In the blog entry in question, I had quoted a long letter written to my best friend, giving him my take on the feud between Palmer and Justin Raimondo. At the end, I said in conclusion: "So that's what I think. Tom Palmer rules. Don't be hatin'." (Note the lack of the exclamation point "Rothbard" so generously provided.) Think of this with the same sense of cultural paradox that would exist in me, a fat, bald, pasty white guy, greeting the friend I was writing to with a colloquial "What up, G?" However lame it might be, it's something we do. The sentiment is genuine, though, so this is really neither here nor there -- more than anything, it serves, in a small way, to highlight the lack of rigor "Rothbard" brings to the table when employing quotations.

But if I'm a Palmer partisan, attempting to prevent the spread of inaccurate claims about him in a source prided for NPOV, "Rothbard" is all the more a partisan. His edit history is filled with tending to the entries of Justin Raimondo and antiwar.com (including correcting the year of Raimondo's birth), and even in some of the other entries to which "Rothbard" has contributed, his edits have involved adding bibliographical references to Justin Raimondo books, or adding Murray Rothbard's critique of Objectivism to the Objectivism entry. There's nothing necessarily wrong with any of these edits, except that together they demonstrate that "Rothbard" brings a single point of view to Wikipedia, spreading it to every entry he touches -- however much he might try to claim neutrality for himself. It hardly matters that "Rothbard" claims not to be Justin Raimondo, if he has so thoroughly devoted himself to Raimondo's cause.

As for the new "compromise" entry, it looks fine to me, as long as it remains free of the inaccurate edits "Rothbard" continues to make. I had assumed that more factual context was better, but a stripped-down entry shouldn't be a controversy for either side as long as it adheres to NPOV -- something "Rothbard" still tries to prevent. Eric.d.dixon 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I see over and over one person vandalizing this entry. How many times will Rothbard try to make such childish and vindicative changes? The neutral point of view offered is important to maintain. Rothbard's point of view is anything but neutral and his edits are violations of the spirit, at least, of the Wikipedia project. I hope that either he gives up or his parents cut off his computer time. --RBrancusi 06:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
FYI, the "three revert rule (WP:3RR forbids more than three reverts within 24 hours. Of course, reverts are never the best way of editing, and they should be discussed, preferably in advance, except in cases of clear vandalism. -Willmcw 07:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
So "Rothbard" has violated the rule. These four reverts attributed to Rothbard's IP address took place within a 24-hour period: October 1 at 7:53, October 1 at 19:25, October 2 at 4:53, and October 2 at 7:40. Or, if you begin with the second edit on that list, we have another string of four reverts attributed to Rothbard's IP address within a 24-hour period: October 1 at 19:25, October 2 at 4:53, October 2 at 7:40, and October 2 at 13:54. Eric.d.dixon 07:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You are correct. I've given him a second warning and will place a temporary block on his account if there is another violation. I appreciate the patience of other editors who have not escalated the edit conflict. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I hope "Rothbard" stops vandalizing the article and using wikipedia as an instrument in whatever personal anti-Palmer agenda he has. I don't think it really matters if "Rothbard" is in fact Justin Raimondo (and/or the author of Raimondo's blatantly vanity article). The point is that he should at least stop vandalizing this entry and argue any disagreements he has with Palmer through proper means (i.e. not by damaging Palmer's entry and disrespecting wikipedia's NPOV policy). Menger 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
An article that is strictly a vanity piece for a nobody is "protected" by the subject's hysterical partisans. An article, by the way, that had a notice at the top saying that it needed editing: yet real editing was furiously protested, even though the piece itself was clearly written by Tom Palmer himself. I note that an alleged "deletionist" has joined the discussion: perhaps he can bring himself to apply his "deletionism" to this particular entry. If ever a Wikipedia article deserved to be deleted, it is this one. Tom Palmer -- who is he? Who was he? Who does he hope to be? And who cares? I see the Palmer-bots are all up in arms about Justin Raimondo, although how he comes into it is anyone's guess. At least Raimondo didn't have to write his own Wikipedia entry. I hope word doesn't get out that Wikipedia is allowing vanity biographies -- there's bound to be quite a rush.
Just so you know, I protected this article of my own volition after stumbling upon it -- and the insane revert war surrounding it -- when browsing around the Wiki. I know nothing about the subject and no one involved in the dispute asked me to protect it. I have no preference for either side or for any page version. If you would like to try to resolve this dispute, I would like to try to mediate it. Would you be willing to give that a shot? --Ryan Delaney talk 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
"Rothbard" disingenuously wonders how Justin Raimondo "comes into it". By my count, "Rothbard" has edited Justin Raimondo's Wikipedia entry four times, Antiwar.com's Wikipedia entry four times, added two bibliographical references to Justin Raimondo books to other Wikipedia entries, and added a link to a Murray Rothbard article to yet another entry. Also, the IP address used by the "Rothbard" account (71.131.92.192) has added a reference to Justin Raimondo in Murray Rothbard's Wikipedia entry, and added a Murray Rothbard reference to the Cato Institute entry. As I pointed out above, what does it matter that "Rothbard" may very well not be Justin Raimondo? He still brings a single, consistent POV to Wikipedia entries. This POV is evident here as well, since the feud between Palmer and Raimondo is well-known. If "Rothbard" thinks his neutrality is so obvious, he would do well in agreeing to mediation. Eric.d.dixon 06:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It's also worth responding to the question "Rothbard" asks above: "Tom Palmer -- who is he? Who was he? Who does he hope to be? And who cares?" Well, "Rothbard" cares, for one. Judging from his edit history, he may care more than anyone else here -- between his signed and unsigned edits, 83 of them involve Tom Palmer; only 19 of them do not. "Rothbard" doth protest too much. Eric.d.dixon 07:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What I care about is Wikipedia. Palmer's entry is a vanity article: that is, it was written by him. It should be deleted, in its entirety, pronto.

Are you willing to discuss this in mediation through some kind of private, off-site communication? --Ryan Delaney talk 21:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Would it be bad form to remind "Rothbard" of his request for arbitrarion on October 2? "If this sort of vandalism continues, I'm wondering: is there a way to arbitrate or decide this issue? I'm also wondering if it is possible to simply delete the entry completely, which is another (albeit less attractive) option." The type of mediation "Rothbard" requested is now on offer, but for some reason he hasn't agreed to it... Eric.d.dixon 01:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a link to his RFAr? --Ryan Delaney talk 02:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has filed a formal request. (Edited to point out that the two sentences I quoted above were not taken from a formal arbitration request, but from a contribution to this discussion page -- 22:27, 2 October 2005.) Eric.d.dixon 02:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
What is there to discuss that hasn't already been discussed on this page? I contend that the numerous sock-puppets have decided that Palmer's real views on the war -- which are clearly expressed in his writings, and referred to on his blog, and elswhere -- must be whitewashed and "spun" so that his clear support for the invasion and the present government of Iraq is somehow turned into "opposition" to the war. The only interesting aspect of Palmer's otherwise prosaic libertarianism is his support for the Bush Doctrine of "regime change" -- yet this is being denied by the sock-puppets, and all reference to it is being "edited" out of existence. Even Palmer's fierce denunciations of the antiwar movement -- up to and including the Vietnam era antiwar movement, with the single exception of Joan Baez -- are somehow interpreted as being directed at a narrow segment, i.e. antiwar libertarians. Justin Raimondo's name keeps coming up, even though he is not a party to this discussion. Even when Palmer's own immortal words are cited, this is somehow interpreted as "twisting" his words. How can such people be reasoned with? They clearly have an agenda, and -- as we have seen -- they are not about to be dissuaded. The only alternative, then, is to call for deletion. If an entry can't be allowed to tell the truth about its subject, and it isn't that important anyway, then it should go. Simple as pie. I rest my case. Rothbard 20:20 October 8, 2005 (UTC)
You've made that case multiple times. I still hold that your edits amount to spinning and misrepresentation, and mine amount to clarification. Clearly we're not going to agree on this, which is why an offer of mediation has been made. The question isn't whether you have changed your mind, but whether you'll let an impartial third party settle this, as the rest of us have already agreed. Eric.d.dixon 08:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


As long as mediation appears to be stalled, I'll take another stab at responding to the claims made above by "Rothbard".

It's an attempt at revisionist history to claim that Palmer had "clear support for the invasion" -- he opposed the war from the start. His support for the continuing occupation is an attempt to make the best of a bad situation, or, as summed up in a common aphorism, "How to turn a seeming disadvantage to our advantage?" The war was a bad idea -- Palmer has always maintained this. But since we're there, it may be possible to help make the country a better place, hence his effort to spread libertarian ideas in Iraq, and advise members of the Iraqi parliament on how to embed principles of liberty in their nascent attempt at building a new government. Palmer may be wrong about any positive effects his efforts in Iraq may have, but to say that this isn't his view, or his goal, is either mistaken or simply dishonest. This could be compared to the time Milton Friedman visited Chile to advise Pinochet's new government. Friedman was also the recipient of harsh criticism from within the libertarian movement for this -- he was accused of supporting Pinochet and his government because he had advised them on free-market principles. This is, correctly, a fact worthy of inclusion in Milton Friedman's Wikipedia entry, but the entry also includes Friedman's own defense of his actions. Not to say that Palmer is anywhere near as notable a figure as Friedman, but this would serve as a good model for Palmer's entry.

Second, as to Palmer's denunciations of members of the antiwar movement -- it's clear from the source that Palmer is criticizing particular members of the antiwar movement, regardless of era, for one particular reason. Palmers sees them as rooting for the other side rather than simply advocating peace. This is the reason for Palmer's denunciation of Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com, Jane Fonda, and William Kunstler -- they represent a particular *type* of antiwar activist that Palmer sees as reprehensible. Palmer's praise of Joan Baez represents a different *type* of antiwar activist that Palmer admires. Although the blog entry in question has Palmer praising only Joan Baez, anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see that both his denunciations and praise stem from specific reasons, and that those same reasons would apply to others. It's pretty safe to say that Palmer would criticize *any* antiwar activist who roots for the Iraqi insurgency against American troops, and that he would admire any antiwar activist who works toward peace for both sides. This is way too much context to put in the entry, but it should suffice to say that Palmer has denounced "some of" the antiwar movement -- even if it doesn't give Palmer's reason for the denunciation.

"Rothbard" claims above that "Even when Palmer's own immortal words are cited, this is somehow interpreted as 'twisting' his words." The only quotation that might fit this charge that I can think of is from a prior paragraph by "Rothbard," which included this phrase: "advocating that U.S. war policy toward the insurgents must be to 'find and kill all of them before they kill all the rest of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.'" The quote is accurate, but a look at the source for the quote quickly reveals that it has nothing to do with Iraqi insurgents; it was about a beheading in Saudi Arabia. So, the quote is specifically about those Palmer views as "Islamicist terrorists". This category may fit some insurgents, but certainly not all of them, and to claim that this quote of Palmer's is about Iraqi insurgents is simply wrong. The source doesn't support the claim.

Finally, "Rothbard" keeps calling everyone else "sock puppets". I don't know for sure who "Rothbard" is, and I'm not sure who "Menger" or "Freemarkets" are either. But I've been forthcoming from the beginning about my own identity and my own biases -- that I know Palmer, and I like him. Still, my only agenda here is accuracy. I think that "Rothbard" has his own conclusions about what Palmer believes, and is determined to shape this Wikipedia entry to fit his own preconceptions, regardless of the evidence. Eric.d.dixon 03:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This page is protected

I am protecting this page, because this dispute is going nowhere fast. Editors involved in this dispute who are willing to accept mediation please sign below. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sign here:

Thanks. Arker 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Count me in. Thanks. Menger 22:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Count me in.--Freemarkets 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, impartial mediation would be fine. Eric.d.dixon 01:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's work towards consensus. Help moving in that direction would be appreciated. -Willmcw 02:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Please mediate. Dymaxion 03:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like he's not interested in mediating this. If anyone is interested in taking this to the next stage, please contact me privately (email) and I will advise. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most Recent Attempts to Insert POV

I think that, if controversial issues are to be raised, it should be undertaken in a neutral manner. The anonymous Houston based person (we can call him SK) has tried to insert unsubstantiated charges about Palmer supporting theocracy, favoring US military victory, etc., on the grounds that other people have bitterly attacked him. That is not a neutral approach appropriate to an encyclopedia. Since a neutral approach was once in it, but was changed by SK to smuggle in his own point of view, it is better to just delete that section. One person (SK: 71.131.34.206, 71.131.36.34) evidently waits until he thinks others don't have this on their watch lists and then strikes to vandalize it as part of a vendetta. That is not what an encyclopedia entry is for. Information should be put in a neutral form. This is not: "He has been further criticized by Raimondo for calling for a "military victory" by the U.S. in Iraq and helping to construct a "theocracy" under the guise of "advising" members of the Iraqi parliament." (71.131.34.206) It implies that Palmer has called for a "military victory" by the U.S. (when the only cited document calls for a victory against terrorists by the Iraqis) and that he has helped to construct a theocracy. Also, "under the guise of" is a statement of bad faith. Those are not compatible with the NPOV suitable for an encyclopedia. Until SK can behave himself, the section should be deleted. Or it should be as it was before he struck, with a neutral point of view.

[edit] Insertion of a Gossip Hate Page

It is tiresome to have the same people (SK and "Dick Clark Mises") vandalizing a page by inserting unsourced materials or - latest attempt - a special hate page dedicated to Stephen Kinsella's personal grudge against the subject of this entry. Gossip pages and stalking pages are not serious sources for an encyclopedia. They have inserted - and others have accepted - links to articles that criticize or even smear (like Raimondo) Palmer. Is that not enough? Every time they come they insist on another bit of hateful smearing. Do that on a blog, not on an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not the place to carry out a grudge - it is a resource for online research and links to serious sources, such as newspapers, not to specially created grudge blogs. --Sajita 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Palmer Periscope" is a dedicated blog, run by a notable individual, N. Stephan Kinsella. The topic of the blog (critique of libertarian policy/theory of notable libertarian Tom Palmer) is within the scope of the expertise for which Kinsella is notable. There is no prohibition against clearly POV sources, only a prohibition against lending them undue weight. Since, so far as I can tell, there isn't even an iota of material in the article that is derived from the source, I find your assertion hard to swallow. The site is evidence of a notable dispute that is ongoing between Palmer and many Rothbardians such as Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and N. Stephan Kinsella. If Tom Palmer and the others are all notable libertarians, and they have published material related to a theoretical/policy dispute between them, I think it is worthy of inclusion. I would love the opinion of someone, however, who isn't a likely sockpuppet. I have noted the following users as possible sockpuppets editing this page: User:Sopranos11, User:Sajita, and an anonymous user using IP address 66.28.68.29. I would love to be proven incorrect about this last, but the combination of few edits, high percentage of commented edits, and clusters of edits around the same core group of articles lead me to believe that these three are the same user. Dick Clark 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
DickClarkMises has never heard of email. It is a very fast way of sending information to other people when someone insists on using an encyclopedia to promote personal grudges.--Sajita 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Blogs and similar one-person websites may not be used as sources for material in articles. However they may be included in the list of external links if they provide additional information for readers. Material in the article must be NPOV, but external links do not need to be neutral. -Will Beback 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the dispute seems to be continuing let me make another comment. The fact that there is a blog devoted entirely to criticizing Palmer demonstrates his prominence. The fact that some libertarians spend their time making puerile complaints about a prominent figure reflects more poorly on them then on Palmer. As for Kinsella, though he is the main contributor he has insisted in the past that he didn't start and doesn't run the site. If it is true that he is the operator then that fact should be recorded in his bio article. Regardless, the link is appropriate for this article. Please see Wikipedia:external links for our policy. -Will Beback 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Will: I was assuming that Kinsella ran the blog because he contributed all but one of the visible blog posts. I have no evidence of him "owning" the site, etc. It may (or may not) be worth noting his status as a contributor to that blog. Dick Clark 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth noting Kinsella's contributions unless we want to add a paragraph to the article about his obsession with the subject. People who are interested in the blog and its author(s) can visit the site. -Will Beback 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is so pathetic. Kinsella, "Dick Clark," and the rest of the wackos should not be allowed to advertise their site on this encyclopedia. If you want to sit around and obsess, feel free, but do it on your own time and your own dime. Buy some blog ads if you want to increase your traffic; don't free-ride on the wikipedia site. (unsigned comment by User:69.140.65.136)

Sir (or Ma'am): Please refrain from making personal attacks, as per WP:NPA. Also, please assume good faith. I have absolutely no affiliation with the website in question. I have never contributed to it, and I didn't know of its existence until I saw it on this article. Therefore, any accusations that I am trying to increase "my" traffic are wrongheaded. The source in question is notable (since N. Stephan Kinsella has been deemed notable by the community), and it is certainly not given any undue weight in the article (it is not cited in the article's body, and the link is in the appropriate place). Dick Clark 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok. I take it back. You're not a wacko. You're totally reasonable, and not creepy at all. In any event, this hate site is not notable, and inserting it here does not help the entry or the encyclopedia. It only increases traffic to the site that's run by your friends. I think it's safe to say that anyone who reads the content on that garbage site doesn't need to "assume good faith" when its proprietors and their friends try to advertise it on Wikipedia.

[edit] Antiwar.com

User:BoggedDownHerbie removed a bit of text citing Antiwar.com which was unfavorable to Palmer. Again, we have a first time editor who magically knows to comment his edit, and who sounds suspiciously like the sockpuppets above in said comment. As I noted in my edit comment, Antiwar.com is a notable entity, especially in the context of libertarian foreign policy positions. Dick Clark 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Palmer Periscope" external link

The obsession with Palmer that those guys show is weird. Weird like unhealthy. Why is "DickClarkMises" so concerned that he only links to or shows attack, which are to cult publications and not generally helpful to an encyclopedia. So he argued with some "Rothbardians"? A link to major media is one thing and a link to a cult publication is another. I can see some of the links, but linking to a 'hate blog' seems to me not very helpful for a scholarly resource. Why the obsession? And why use an encyclopedia to carry out such a weird obsession? And Kinsella is as notable as any random person with an obsession to stalk someone else. No more. (unsigned comment by anonymous user at 149.225.62.52)

The external link in question is a blog largely composed of contributions by a notable individual who is writing on topics for which his published opinions are notable. The community has already addressed the issue of Stephan Kinsella's notabilty. The most recent result of the Articles for Deletion process was "keep." Dick Clark 05:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The question that must be answered for any external link is: does it provide useful information to the reader? I haven't read enough of the "Periscope" to know. If it is just one man's opinions then it might not. "Articles with multiple POVs" may have links to sites representing those POVs, but I don't know that this article qualifies. Regarding Kinsella's notability, he has been deemed to be sufficiently notable to have an article, as would any author who sells a number of books or appears in widely read media. It does not mean that his opinions on all topics are notable. Could the editors who favor adding the link indicate what it provides to this article? It'd be helpful if editors could refer to the policies and guidelines which support their positions. -Will Beback 07:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I've read of "The Palmer Periscope," it is a compilation of (according to Kinsella and others) contrasting policy positions that Tom Palmer has espoused in seemingly verifiable sources. Given that the statements by Tom Palmer are made in his capacity as a libertarian ideologue (I do not mean this in the pejorative sense), and given that Kinsella's notability is for his own work on libertarian jurisprudence, it seems that this source is comparable in kind to the Libertarian Forum article also linked from here, entitled "Will the Real Tom Palmer Please Stand Up?" Dick Clark 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of Derrick Welles, the author of the piece, and the Libertarian Forum is apparently insufficiently notable to have an article. Maybe that isn't the best comparison. -Will Beback 03:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The article "Will the Real Tom Palmer Please Stand Up?", from 1982, seems to be a relic of the feud between Murray Rothbard and Ed Crane, and does not seem to be a terribly insightful discussion of Palmer himself. -Will Beback 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would make the case that the Libertarian Forum would meet community standards for notability, but this is not an entry on the Libertarian Forum, so I won't try to make it here (I'll probably test the waters on this issue by creating an LF entry sometime soon). I'm sorry if my example wasn't a good one. I would still argue, though, that Kinsella and Palmer are notable for their contributions to libertarian policy debate. It seems to me that any source that is verifiably authored by an individual notable for his/her work in the area addressed should be considered a potential source for this encyclopedia. I don't understand why the dispute between these two individuals wouldn't be relevent here. If Palmer was a primary contributor to a blog critical of Kinsella's published statements in his area of expertise, I think we would all agree that it belonged in Kinsella's entry. Likewise, Palmer's blog-published criticisms of Lew Rockwell have been deemed relevent to the Lew Rockwell article. Let's be consistent. Dick Clark 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would note that I mistakenly stated above that Palmer's criticism of Lew Rockwell was noted in the Lew Rockwell article. This mention of Palmer's criticism was recently moved to the LewRockwell.com entry. Dick Clark 22:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
We don't consider Kinsella's contributions to the blog to be notable enough to mention in his own bio. To be consistent, we'd need to say that he is notable for attacking/criticizing a fellow libertarian. In any case, I've semi-protected the article, which means established editors may still edit it, but unregistered IPs may not. That is intended to slow the revert war and bring the other editor here to discuss the matter. -Will Beback 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, point taken about the Palmer Periscope not being mentioned in Kinsella's own entry—I'll rectify that presently. Let me know what you think of my addition to the Stephan Kinsella article, and we'll go from there. Cheers, Dick Clark 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've inserted a mention of the blog into the Stephan Kinsella entry and I've also inserted a mention of Palmer's own blog criticisms of LewRockwell.com in this article so as to be totally consistent. I am also re-inserting the Palmer Periscope blog link here. Dick Clark 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there no criticism that's out of bounds for a link from this encyclopedia? Do we really need a link to a site that calls Dr. Palmer "La Palmer," "P-Dog," and a "dimwit-serioso"? Are readers going to learn much by going to a site that calls Palmer an "utter idiot and/or liar"? Or by reading that "Palmer is trapped with a tortured, distorted perspective on reality". It's clear from an even cursory reading of this page that it's nothing but the incoherent ramblings of a VERY disturbed pseudo-intellectual. That person should not be able to free-ride on either Wikipedia or Dr. Palmer, and as such the page ought to be omitted, or submitted as its own entry to rise or fall as the readers and editors determine is appropriate.--Sopranos11 (previous unsigned comment by User:Sopranos11)

Look, this encyclopedia entry does not exist so that some karmic debt to Tom Palmer, Stephan Kinsella, or whoever can be paid off. The entry exists because Tom Palmer has (rightfully) been deemed notable by the community. So too has Kinsella, and therefore Kinsella's topical, if brusque criticisms are worthy of inclusion. This is not because "Kinsella deserves it" as you seem to believe that I am arguing. Anyone who is notable in the same area as Palmer and who verifiably criticizes Palmer's work in their area of mutual expertise/notability should be included in this article. This is but one example. As Will Beback has said, if your claims of the linked site's sloppiness/inaccuracy are true, then people will have a lower opinion of Palmer's detractors after viewing it. Readers should get context with their information, and this link is relevent context. Also, please sign your talk page posts with "~~~~". Dick Clark 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of criticisms on the page already, with Palmer's reply to all of them. This particular page is not substantive criticism, but a hodge-podge of name-calling and rambling. If Kinsella publishes an academic article that takes Palmer to task, and Palmer replies in kind, perhaps both of those could be included. But an online tabloid dedicated to one person is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Sopranos11 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Since when are you the judge of what comprises a substantive criticism of Tom Palmer's work? It is not our job as wikipedia editors to decide which side is right and which side is being silly in a debate. It is up to us as a community to discern from verifiable sources who is notable in certain realms of discourse. Kinsella and Palmer are both notable ideologues, thus their ideological criticisms of one another are notable. And whence cometh this "rule" that says that one cannot solely criticize one individual in a particular forum? Additionally, in regard to your objection about "name-calling," it was certainly notable when John Adams talked trash about George Washington, even though it wasn't always in formal, polite terms. Encyclopedias frequently do make mention of that sort of tidbit, because it makes the subjects more three-dimensional, more human. While neither Palmer nor Kinsella rise anywhere near that apogee of notability, the comparison is accurate. We are talking about two individuals who not only disagree philosophically, but who clearly don't like each other. Their personal disdain cannot be allowed to disqualify the dispute from examination by folks trying to draw a full, informed impression of Palmer or Kinsella. Dick Clark 16:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is ok but linking a blog dedicated to smearing someone on his encyclopedia entry seems to me to be just plain silly and an encouragement to name calling and other similar behaviour. --158.143.169.8 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The blog is largely authored by an individual deemed notable by this community for his work in fields directly related to this article. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to encourage or discourage any particular behavior amongst the subjects that we write articles about. It is our role to report on them to our readers in a way that complies with WP:NPOV. Kinsella makes criticisms on the page in question that directly pertain to Palmer's credibility/consistency. On the other hand—as Will Beback has noted—the link (which also appears in Kinsella's article) may cast Kinsella as petty, grudge-carrying, etc. We should allow wiki-readers to decide for themselves. Dick Clark 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me as odd that a blog which appears to rely to a large extent on personal insults can be judged (and this sort of thing obviously involves a judgement) as presenting relevant criticism. At most, it is evidence that some individuals are obsessed with Palmer to the point of creating and mantaining a website solely devoted to smearing him. But I remain unconvinced that such a resource is worthy of a link in an encyclopedia. --158.143.169.5 18:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is a criticism of Palmer by a notable individual. It doesn't really matter if it strikes you as odd. As you say, some may interpret the link in a fashion that is favorable to Palmer, and others may be persuaded in the other direction. Either way, it is a published criticism by a notable individual in a relevent field. Look, even if the whole thing was Kinsella just cursing at Palmer, I would argue that it was notable. This is a very public, ongoing dispute between two notable individuals. What if this article, this article, and this article didn't tell us that Alexander Hamilton said nasty things about Aaron Burr? That would be an incomplete picture presented to the reader. I am not even trying to incorporate text from Kinsella's writings into this article. I just want people who are interested to be able to find it. Dick Clark 19:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification, and to avoid needless tangents in this debate, let me be very clear: I am not claiming that Palmer is going to shoot Kinsella in a duel, or vice versa. I am of the opinion that disputes between notable individuals are themselves notable. Therefore, I would argue that the dispute between Burr and Hamilton was notable even before the duel. Dick Clark 20:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
"A published criticism by a notable individual in a relevant field"? Give me a break. This isn't Fuller and Hart going after each other in the Harvard Law Review. It's just some weirdo who started a blog dedicated to calling Tom Palmer weird names. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic. It's still funny in that, "look, honey, a clown" sort of way. In any event, it's not appropriate for this encyclopedia.Sopranos11 17:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Other than your personal (presumably non-notable) opinion about this matter, do you have an argument to make for your repeated deletions? Calling Kinsella a "weirdo" doesn't bolster your case. The Wikipedia community has decided that you are wrong, and that Kinsella is notable. His criticism of fellow libertarian Palmer is notable, and it is verifiable. Therefore, it should be included. Given the informal tone of the source in question, I certainly agree with you that most direct quotes would be too bombastic for insertion into this article. Nonetheless, Kinsella's dispute with Palmer is notable (they've both written about it), and readers can profit from being aware of this contextual information. Additionally, it appears that Kinsella does make substantive criticisms of Palmer on the site. The blog is clearly not, as you say, "dedicated to calling Tom Palmer weird names." Rather, it is blog dedicated to outing Palmer with regards to what Kinsella and a few others perceive as inconsistencies in the policy positions that Palmer has taken over the years. Dick Clark 20:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia very useful when I want to find out the date Margaret Thatcher was elected, or the population of Iceland. But of course the obvious problem with Wikipedia is that it gets used by people with an ax to grind. That's bad enough when it's Bush lovers and haters fighting over the biography of the president of the United States. It's farce when people with too much time on their hands spend their days writing personal attacks on relatively obscure scholars. As for this "Palmer Periscope" link, I mean really. How can an *encyclopedia* link to a blog that calls a scholar "La Palmer," "P-Dog," "dimwit-serioso" and "Tommy boy"? Let's see . . . imagine the Milton Friedman entry offering as a serious resource a site that calls him "Uncle Miltie," "Pinochet's butt boy," and "Jew-boy Friedman." People who value Wikipedia should block this site and police this nonsense.69.143.116.143 20:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The good news is that editors apparently agree on 99.95% of the article. We can do an RfC to get input from a variety of editors. That might be a good idea. -Will Beback 21:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is: does the "Palmer Periscope" with its repeated inflammed attacks on Palmer ("P-Dog," "dimwit-serioso", "Tommy boy" and so on) meet the standard for substantive and relevant criticism? I think no matter how "notable" one thinks this fellow Kinsella is (?), reasonable people should agree that Kinsella's personal and vile rants against the subject of this entry are not material worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --82.154.211.222 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you claim that these attacks are more "vile" than the bomb-throwing that Palmer engages in when he pulls out the "racist" and other similar epithets? Look, I am not suggesting that the Wikipedia article include quotes that describe Palmer as any of the names you list above. I am suggesting that a dedicated opposition site against this notable individual by another notable individual is worth noting to readers. If you are correct, and this "hate" site is so farcical, surely you trust readers to draw the same conclusion, n'est-ce pas? Or is it just that you are trying to censor anti-Palmer sources on Wikipedia? Dick Clark 16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
At least "racist" is a serious claim. "Tommy boy" is just a sign of someone with a personal animus. And that's the sort of thing that an encyclopedia normally doesn't consider a reliable source.Sajita 04:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"Racist" certainly is a serious claim. So too is the claim that a person's published policy positions contradict one another. As I have already stressed several times, I would not favor the inclusion of quotes from this source in the article. Whether this linked document accurately portrays the views of Stephan Kinsella is not at issue here, and I would argue that a systematic (if sometimes uncivil) attack on Palmer for being inconsistent with regards to Kinsella's and Palmer's areas of mutual notability is pretty topical for this encyclopedia article. I would also mention that the ridicule of ideological opponents has many precedents, and that a tone of annoyed disgust shouldn't rule out a source's inclusion. I have personally seen many, many political cartoons criticizing particular individuals in a very unkind manner included in textbooks, encyclopedias, etc. Criticism doesn't have to be civil to be notable. WP:CIVIL applies to the behavior of Wikipedians, not to the subjects of Wikipedia. Dick Clark 17:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC?

Well, it seems that those in favor of deleting the link in question do not wish to engage in further dialogue on this talk page. While I would much prefer the interested parties coming to some compromise position on this, I am afraid that Will Beback was correct when he suggested an RfC to solve this dispute. Dick Clark 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the link is necessary? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the link constitutes a substantive criticism of Palmer by an individual who is notable within Libertarian political philosophy/jurisprudence realm of discourse. As I have said before, I am not arguing for any direct quotes from the site in the body of the article. Rather, I just think that interested readers should be able to find their way to information on a seemingly notable dispute between this article's subject and others in the field. Dick Clark 22:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This dispute has been listed here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics Dick Clark 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm responding to your request. I've read through the article and talk page, Tom's personal home page and the critical page in question, and my impression is that the link essentially a general bashing page, and not very respectable. So I'd prefer not to include it within the article. I don't think that these kinds of links are as important for articles about persons as they are for topics, such as politics, etc.

It would perhaps be suitable to instead write in the article text itself Who are his main critics and what are their main arguments. That would then in turn motivate external links. Regards, Fred-Chess 18:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I should also add that this is just my opinion; I don't claim this to be an official statement of Wikipedia. / Fred-Chess 18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fred for offering your perspective on this issue. It is, on reflection, a rather glaring omission to have not created a criticism section in the article. There are criticisms of Palmer that would meet the notability/verifiability criteria by anyone's standards, and short summaries of those disputes in the neutral, encyclopedic voice would arguably be more helpful than a simple collection of external links to critical sources. It looks like we could begin with short descriptions of the Antiwar.com and Jeffrey Friedman exchanges already listed in the external links section. Dick Clark 18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What is a problem is that the "criticism" inserted by POV-Vandals is in the form of juvenile blog remarks. Jeffrey Friedman's essay is serious criticism, but what DickClarkMises insists on inserting is not. Wikipedia should be more than just Google; if you want to find blog comments about someone or something, go to Google; if you want to find substantive scholarship, go to Wikipedia. But DickClarkMises is working very hnard to make the two hard to distinguish. --Sajita 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I just wrote. An encyclopedia is not a list of squabbles between people or gossip. If Palmer writes on his blog that Lew Rockwell (DickClarkMises' employer) is a racist, that is his signed opinion, under his own name. He does not, as far as I know, try to put such statements into Wikipedia, where it does not appear under his name. That is the difference between a blog and an encyclopedia. If DickClarkMises or other people want to pursue such matters, they should have the decency to do it under their own names and not try to pursue a feud on Wikipedia's pages.--Sajita 02:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you would cruise over to the Lew Rockwell article, you will see that Palmer's criticisms of Rockwell have been deemed notable by the Wikipedia community, myself included. It only seems fair to balance with notation of Kinsella's and other scholars' critiques of Palmer here. Dick Clark 02:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
DickClarkMises is not, I am afraid to say, being entirely straightforward. The link on the Rockwell entry (I just checked) is to this Wikipedia essay, not to Palmer's blog criticisms of Rockwell. I oppose including such matters generally, but it is unclear what is the point of noting that Rockwell has been criticized by Palmer and not linking to the criticism, and instead linking to the Wiki entry on Palmer. That is hardly "turnabout is fair play". DickClarkMises has inserted into the Wiki essay on Palmer a gossipy hate blog, not a scholarly essay or a Wiki essay; he is is being a partisan in the matter, and that does not advance the fundamental purposes of Wikipedia. --67.100.157.249 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears a lot has happened here since I last stopped by. The page didn't change for months, and I stopped checking in. At any rate, after reviewing the last few months of changes, and the new discussion on this page, I feel I should disclose something. When I first stepped in to help edit this page, back during the edit wars instigated by "Rothbard," I almost added the Palmer Periscope link to the article myself, at the same time I added a few other external links. I certainly didn't intend to do this with the intention of raising the quality of discourse associated with this entry, but I generally hold the view that there's nothing wrong with including a source of criticism as long as a rationale for the article subject's own views are represented -- or, at least, also linked.

The tone of the Palmer Periscope blog is enough to discredit itself in the eyes of anyone looking for substantive criticism (not to mention that I have trouble believing that anyone who calls Palmer "serioso" knows him at all), but it was something else that made me change my mind about adding the link. A friend of mine, who followed this Wikipedia edit imbroglio back when I first participated, decided to involve himself by adding a comment at the Palmer Periscope. He sent me the link to his comment the night he made it -- it was a clear, respectful analysis of the flaws in Kinsella's logic in one of his recent Periscope entries. I was curious to see if any legitimate defense could be made, so I checked the comments for that entry again the next day. My friend's comment was gone.

Kinsella is certainly under no obligation to host the comments of people who disagree with him on his blog (or his friend's blog, as the case may be). But an author deleting outright clear, respectful criticism of his writing indicates that he doesn't have much faith in the strength of his own arguments. I decided I couldn't add an external link to that site in the spirit of open dialogue, when the site in question was itself hostile to such open dialogue. Eric.d.dixon 12:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dick Clark (DickClarkMises) has revealed his attitude toward the Wikipedia project. It's about "play." He argues that since Palmer was listed as a critic of his employer (as pointed out above, with a link to this Wikipedia entry only), it's acceptable to insert into an entry on Palmer bizarre and strange hate blogs, since "turnabout is fair play" (that's the comment on his edit summary). Wikipedia is a research tool, Dick, not a place to play childish games. You discredit yourself. --Sajita 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sajita: Your sophistry above is pretty unconvincing. I have said before and I still say that I am interested in hearing community voices on the issue of whether or not this link should be included. I am certainly not "playing games," my figure of speech notwithstanding. Rather than making snide remarks designed to attack me, why not just stick to attacking my position and therefore honoring WP:NPA? Dick Clark 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Palmer's supposed "smuggling" of copiers and fax machines through the Iron Curtan

What is the source for this rather wild claim other than Palmer himself?

How exactly did he smuggle them? In his suitcase? That would not be possible they would not fit. Did he drive a truck accross the Iron Curtan?

Tom likes to cultivate a sophisticated and dashing persona, but having known and worked with the guy this claim needs verification from a person besides Palmer or someone closely aligned to him.

How do you verify illegal activity? Whatever the answer, I have sent to Dr. Palmer an email to ask him. Unless that is not allowed? (And it hardly seems "impossible" to smuggle items in suitcases or autos. But I have asked him that, too.) And it hardly seems "wild" about a person who also travels to Baghdad and drives around Iraq. That's more than a bit dangerous, don't you think?--Sajita 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
"Smuggling" may include such sedate activities as falsely labelling the contents of a shipping box. -19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to make claims that imply that you risked your life in acting to undermine your country's enemies, some proof ought to be provided. None ever has. Who were these recipients of copiers and fax machines? And if all he did was mislabel some boxes, good for him. Let's say just that. What was Plamer's response to these e-mails? Kitteninthebelfry 05:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I emailed Dr. Palmer again and got a response from his blackberry that he has been traveling and has not had much access to the internet. He wrote that he will send me responses after he gets back to the U.S. and attends to his correspondence. Sajita 12:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I received an email from Dr. Palmer that was sent to him by Christine Blundell, who is the Operations Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London and who used to work with him. (He said he was still going through emails and would contact me again.) Her letter follows: 19th April 2006

XXXXXXXX
Dear Tom,
I'm surprised that anyone might express doubts about your accomplishments in the now-former communist world, which were certainly quite well known at the time. As a former colleague at the Institute for Humane Studies I very well remember the expenditures for you to smuggle to classical liberals such valued items as fax machines, small photocopiers, computers, cash, and, of course, books. Your ability to take them by car, by train, and by plane was memorable. Providing such assistance was of material importance to the growth of classical liberal thinking throughout the region. Besides enabling the publication of books and journals (illegally and later legally), they helped to create a network of informed and motivated friends of freedom that has been important to the transformation of what were totalitarian regimes into something better -- in some cases, much, much better.
Best regards,
Christine Blundell
Operations Director
Institute of Economic Affairs
XXXXXXXX

This seems to me to be adequate evidence of the sort that Mr. Kitten demanded. Accordingly, I am reverting to the previous version. --Sajita 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I am satisfied. Thank you, Sajita, for taking the trouble to inquire about and clarify the matter.Kitteneatkitten 22:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the term "classical liberal"

On another issue, I do not think the word "classical liberal" should be used in this article. The phrase itself is not neutral and never in my experience used outside the speech and works of modern American libertarians.

The phrase implies that modern liberals have somehow deviated from the principles of 19th century liberals, but that modern libertarians such as Mr. Palmer stay true to these principles.

For this reason I am changing all references to "classical liberal" to either "libertarian" when the reference is to libertarians, and "liberal" when the reference is to figures from before 1900. These terms are both in wide circulation and not at all loaded words. Palmer's employer in fact describes itself as "libertarian."

I also propose, if you disagree with this change, that the issue be mediated rather than us changing things back and forth. Kitteneatkitten 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to disagree with you on that. The term is commonly used in academic discourse to distinguish European "liberals" from American "liberals." Friedrich von Hayek, for example, was a British citizen from Austria who described himself as a liberal. He, like Ludwig von Mises (who died an American citizen from Austria), described himself as a liberal. Similarly for Raymond Aron, Bertrand de Jouvenel, and other European political scientists, economists, and philosophers. In European political discourse, the "liberal" parties are rather distinct from American "liberal politicians," who are generally closer to European "social democrats." Mr. Palmer seems to spend some time in Europe, where the term liberal is more familiar than libertarian. You reveal a very American-centric perspective on political/intellectual terminology. In addition, the term libertarian is sometimes used to distinguish what one might term "hard core," "radical," or "extreme" "liberals" (depending on one's perspective) from "more moderate liberals." As such, "libertarian" would be a species of "liberal," not another animal altogether.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to alternate the terms, or to use something like "classical liberal (or libertarian) views" (or "libertarian (or classical liberal) views") as a descriptive phrase.
I just checked and his employer describes their philosophy as "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." There is a detailed description of terminology on their web site. Their own self-description is as "liberals," but they say that they use "libertarians" in the American context. I submit, therefore, that both ("classical liberal" and "libertarian") should be in this entry, not only one, since Wikipedia is not only for American readers.

(my post begins here - kitten) Your proposed compromise is really not one at all, as all it proposes to do is mix a neutral word with one that is not neutral. It would be like me proposing to alternate "libertarian" with "classical reactionary."

My concern is that calling Mr. Palmer a "classical liberal" implies that he and his fellow libertarians are true to America's liberal heritage (Jefferson, Hume, Locke, et al.,) while those commonly described today as liberals today in America are not. This is not a neutral point of view, even if the level of bias is toned down as you propose. I maintain that Mr. Palmer is not a classical liberal at all, and if he is a classical anything he is a "classical reactionary," that is a steady defender of the powerful against the weak. Just as calling Mr. Palmer a "classical reactionary" anywhere in the article is not neutral, the same applies to calling him a "classical liberal." This is not the proper place to decide if libertarians such as Mr. Palmer or social democrats such as Rep. Bernie Sanders are the real heirs of Jefferson and Locke, thus the neutral term libertarian should be used.

That the Cato Institute also wants to use the same biased termonology as you and Mr. Palmer is neither relevant nor any surprise.

PS - don't forget to sign your posts with a four "~" marks so I know whom I'm talking to.

Kitteneatkitten 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I also do not understand Mr. or Ms. Kitten's concern. He or she seems to think that the term "liberal" is a term of praise, rather than simply a descriptive term. Kitten tells us that he or she does not like Dr. Palmer's ideas (which Kitten calls "reactionary," which is always an insult and not something many people would say of themselves or of people they like), but if he would consult Wikipedia's entry on classical liberalism, he would find that it certainly applies to Dr. Palmer and also to his institute. The term is very widely used to refer to a belief in limited government, protection of private property, religious toleration, etc., etc. It does not imply that modern liberals are not heirs of liberalism, but only that there are various heirs, including "modern liberals" and "classical liberals." That is why "classical" is added to the term, to avoid confusion with how the term is mostly used in the United States. It distinguishes a point of view that is not conservative (no laws against voluntary sexuality, free speech, drug use, immigration, for examples) and is not socialist (free markets, free trade) and is not for the welfare state. In other countries, "classical" is not necessary, as the term for that position is just "liberal." It seems that Kitten is, maybe unconsciously, inserting a point of view by arguing that "liberal" is somehow a term of praise and that the most common American usage is the right one and that the better term for Dr. Palmer's views is "reactionary," since Kitten thinks that Dr. Palmer must hate poor people, since Kitten thinks his policies would be bad for them, whereas Dr. Palmer apparently thinks that they would be beneficial for them.

If Wikipedia has an entry on classical liberalism and if the term is commonly used to describe people like Dr. Palmer and the Cato Institute, then I see no reasons why it should not be in this entry, and used as a descriptive term and with no sense that it is praise (or, for that matter, blame). I would be willing to ask for the views of others, but as Kitten has explained his or her view, I think that it is not appropriate editing, but an unfortunate introduction of a point of view into an article and I would revert to the previous version, but would accept the compromise of using both terms. "Classical liberal" is used among academics and among political writers who distinguish those views from "modern American liberalism" (or from "social liberalism"); "libertarian" is used to signify a more radical form of that view and to avoid confusion with "modern American liberalism." --Sajita 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sajita, as described above, your compromise is no compromise at all. If calling Palmer a "classical liberal" is not neutral, then doing so less often or in parenthesis does not change anything, the article is still biased. I would not object, however, to a line mentioning that "Palmer describes his views as classical liberalism." This is both true, gets accross the fact that this is what Palmer would like to be called, yet maintains neutrality by not actually stating as fact that Palmer is a "classical liberal."

If you don't like the analogy to "classical reactionary," how about "classical tory" or "classical conservative?" Both of these are better words to describe Mr. Palmer, if we are going to call him "classical" anything at all. I think it is best not wading at all into the whole manner of whether Palmer or modern libertarian ideology most resembles the liberals or the conservatives of yesteryear. I think the resemblance is to conservatives/tories, libertarians like you and Palmer think the resemblance is to the liberals. Let's agree to disagree on the issue.

Regarding the Wikipedia entry on classical liberalism, I also believe that is not neutral, and will edit it to make it neutral at a later date. - Kitteneatkitten 18:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please also see the Wikipedia page on neutrality: "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."

It is an opinon, not a fact, that Palmer is a "classical liberal."

- Kitteneatkitten 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just silly. Is it an opinion, not a fact, that Palmer is a "libertarian" or a "free trader" or a "gay-rights advocate" or a "military conscription opponent"? Is it an opinion, not a fact, that he has worked to abolish military conscription, or to legalize drugs, or to promote the rights of gays, or promote free trade, or to undermine totalitarian dictatorships? Kitten is being silly if his response is that Wikipedia's entire entry on classical liberalism is also not neutral, so he/she will edit to say that none of the people or ideas described under the entry are, in fact, classical liberal. If he/she would google the term, what would he/she find? Is the entire internet not neutral? I am not convinced and I do not think that others will be convinced by these arguments. As to conservative or tory, do tories and conservatives work to legalize drugs like the cato Institute? Do they work to promote free speech like the Cato Institute? Do classical tories campaign for free trade? (Consider the history of the Liberal Party, which was formed by the English liberals -- classical liberals all -- to oppose the Tory support for protectionism. Kitten just does not know what "Tory" means if he/she thinks that Tories were known for support for religious freedom, or freedom of trade, or equality before the law, or freedom of movement, or legal equality for women, or other classical liberal causes.)
Kitten has gone too far and insisted that his or her views about what a "true" liberal is must dictate whether the very common term of "classical liberal" can be used to describe people who are regularly described in those terms in academic treatises, in encyclopedias, and all over the world. In Europe, in India, in Latin America, and elsewhere, the term "liberal" means very different things from what it means in the U.S. That is why Hayek and Milton Friedman called themselves "liberals." But, to avoid confusion with American political language, most people attach the word "classical" before "liberal" to distinguish the classical liberals from other liberals. There is no argument that they are not heirs of liberalism; the argument is whether they are the only heirs of liberalism and over that reasonable people may disagree. The use of the term "classical" indicates neutrality in that dispute. If I do not see a better argument from Kitten, I will change the text back. Using a common term like classical liberal, which is understood all around the world to refer to the views that Dr. Palmer holds, is not an opinion, but a normal usage of language. --Sajita 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sajita, I have no problem with Palmer calling himself a liberal (or Milton Friedman). My view is that this would be the right word to use in Germany or Russia, though not the right word in the USA or Great Britian, the two major main English-speaking countries. Here I think he is best described only as a libertarian, which has the dual advantages of being in wide use and being neutral. There is also no dispute as to the accuracy of calling Palmer a libertarian, he uses the word.

My problem is with the libertarian habit of using the words libertarian and classical liberal interchangably.

Now to answer your questions:

--Is it an opinion, not a fact, that Palmer is a "libertarian" or a "free trader" or a "gay-rights advocate" or a "military conscription opponent"?

---All facts. I suppose some gays might view Palmer's belief that firing people just because they are gay should be legal means he really isn't a gay-rights advocate, but we ought not get off on such a tangent here :)

--Is it an opinion, not a fact, that he has worked to abolish military conscription, or to legalize drugs, or to promote the rights of gays, or promote free trade, or to undermine totalitarian dictatorships?

---These are all facts again.


--If he/she would google the term, what would he/she find?

---I actually did google the term, and I found that it was almost entirely a phrase used by libertarian writers. I found no instances of a prominant nonlibertarian using the phrase to describe a modern American libertarian such as Palmer. There may be one or two such citations out there, but not enough to justify using the word when the word "libertarian" also can be used and is not controversial.

Now regarding tories v. liberals, Palmer's views on some issues are analogous to positions held by early liberals, while others more closely reflect those of tories, for example his opposition to imperialism and public funding of education. It is a question of which of these positions are more important (as well as how close they really are). In my opinion on essential issues he more closely resembles early tories and conservatives, in your opinion and obviously his he more resembles the liberals of yore.

We both have opinions about what liberal means, and whether modern libertarians are true to the ideals of early liberals. Either way, this is not an issue that should be stated as a fact, especially given the fact that a neutral term is readily available. Kitteneatkitten 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I also find this a silly discussion. They call themselves classical liberals. They have some good reason to do so. Other people call them classical liberals. So they're called classical liberals. People dispute about terms all the time -- even Kitten's supposedly "neutral" term - libertarian - is disputed. Some people who call themselves libertarians say other people who also call themselves libertarians aren't. (That's why some of them now use the name "left-libertarians," kind of like "classical liberals.") Same with labels like socialist, conservative, populist, etc., etc. I vote to use both terms in this discussion. Kitten's approach -- to say "he calls himself X" could also be applied to the term "libertarian." So he'd write, "He has promoted views that he calls libertarian." Elegant. Not. --Politophile 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmer indentifies himself as a libertarian. That alone means the word is perferable to a word whose usage is in dispute. And no, it is not silly, if you are someone who rejects the libertarian scheme to equate their views to those of Jefferson, Paine, and other early liberal figures who would view the ideology of modern libertarians with disdain.

As a compromise, we could include a section on whether libertarians like Palmer are really liberal. I think it would be simpler to just use the word libertarian and avoid mentioning the conflict over the phrase entirely. Kitteneatkitten 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would compromise over the term if we use both in a clear way. If Ludwig von Mises, author of the book "Liberalism," was a liberal, and Palmer translates his books, then he is promoting liberal ideas. But Kitteneatkitten would be upset, and with some reason, since "liberal" is used differently in the U.S. and that might be confusing. So people add the modifier "classical" to avoid confusion. As to whether "libertarian" and "classical liberal" mean the same thing, I'm agnostic. But if Mises was a liberal, and Palmer promotes his books, then Palmer is promoting "liberal ideas," as well as "libertarian ideas." I'll compromise by adding, as I did, "the promotion of libertarian and classical liberal ideas and policies."--Politophile 02:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/m/Talk%7ETom_G._Palmer_af59.html"