Talk:Mark Thornton

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

Untitled[edit]

Changed "senior faculty member" to "senior fellow," largely due to information on his official Mises.org bio, here: http://www.mises.org/fellows.asp?control=12 Senior fellows are also members of the senior faculty at the Mises Institute, as indicated here: http://www.mises.org/faculty.asp I feel that the "Senior Fellow" title is more specific, and therefore more informative. DickClarkMises 8 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

The Mises page here indiactes that there is only one "fellow" at Mises, Marcus Verhaegh. The bio page does not put "senior fellow" in caps, apparently using the term loosely. Based on the information at the Mises Institute, "Senior Faculty" member appears to be the correct title. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Okay, as far as the "fellow" list faculty page is a little out of date. We actually have somewhere around 12 fellows here right now (other than M. Verhaegh, the fellows are summer fellows, not year-long). That's really neither here nor there, of course. I asked Jeff Tucker, Editorial VP of the Mises Institute, what the preferred title for Dr. Thornton is. He responded with "Senior Resident Faculty." This distinguishes Dr. Thornton from the numerous faculty members who are not resident faculty (those who only come in for the summer seminars). So, Willmcw, it appears that you figured this one out... Am changing "Senior Fellow" to "Senior Resident Faculty member." This should be more accurate than either the present title or the slightly more simple "Senior Faculty."DickClarkMises 16:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the research. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good refs for article[edit]

Here are some I came up with in ½ hour of searching. So many articles, so little time to work on them all, eh??

  • Misc. publications
  • Mark Thornton, Robert Burton Ekelund, Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004 ISBN 0842029605, 9780842029605
  • Chapter 3 in Prohibitions, Edited by John Meadowcroft London: Institute for Economic Affairs, 2008.
  • Mark Thornton, "The Potency of Illegal Drugs", Journal of Drug Issues, Vol. 28 No. 3, (Summer 1998) pp. 725-740
  • Mark Thornton, "What Explains Crystal Meth?" Mises Daily, January 20, 2011.
  • “Public Choice” journal
  • Social Science Quarterly
  • Skyscrapers and business cycles, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, resulted in a couple of news articles mentions above.
  • Book Housing America: Building Out of a Crisis lists various refs from him on housing crisis which shows having written on topic here

The above, if properly put together in relevant paragraphs, indicates he has had notable views on a number of topics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Binksternet for more that can be added soon:
  • Thornton's book Prohibition has been cited many times including articles in Columbia Law Review[1], Administrative Science Quarterly[2], American Law and Economics Review, Economic Policy[3], Journal of Economic Psychology[4], and by authors published by Woodrow Wilson Center Press[5], Routledge[6], NYU Press[7], and Psychology Press [8].
Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refs just keep coming at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Thornton#Mark_Thornton. Note particularly his [Resume which provides lots of leads to good info, besides being useable itself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What on his resume do you think indicates notability? I don't see anything there. In fact, this just about seals the file unless there is other information not on the resume. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think isn't notable? Remember we repeatedly have linked to WP:RSN threads saying resumes are useable (if don't make extraordinary claims). Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question, so I'll interpret your silence as assent. You're free to keep digging, but it's unlikely that there's anything that would establish notability. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have your opinion and I have mine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain tags[edit]

These tags have never been discussed on the talk page, thus removal of unexplained tags (unless they are very clearly relevant, which these are not) always ok.

  • This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2013)
  • This article possibly contains original research. (June 2013)
  • This biographical article relies on references to primary sources. (June 2013)
  • This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (June 2013)

So we can those who support them please explain them? Otherwise they will be removed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These tags still are not explained and have been removed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability template?[edit]

This article was posted for AfD one month ago. Why bring up notability again at this point? – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To encourage improvement of the article by tagging its borderline notabiity and avoid another AfD a couple of months down the road, now please don't edit war. You should undo your removal of the template. Next time, use talk first before you revert. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already tagged for sources, etc., which properly encourage improvement of the article. Notability is not an issue. You did your bold tag, I reverted, I started this discussion. (The essay is BRD, not BDR.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to you to remove a template, as you've pointedly told other editors in other articles. Please review WP policy and consider your actions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance for {{Notability}} says "Usage: Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about)...." – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't notability since lots of refs have been brought up and material just needs to be entered, the issue is editors needing to add them. So many articles, so little time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carol is correct—notability is not the problem. It is true that the references listed at the AfD and on the talk page should be added to the article, with text summarizing their positions. However, these refs establish notability quite well. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tag doesn't state that the article is not notable. It states that the article "may" not be notable. The AfD establishes that notability is questionable, since it indicated that there was "no consensus" for (or against) notability. Steeletrap (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet is quite correct. We add tags that are truly helpful to the development of the project. In this case the refimprove, "find", etc. tags serve quite well. Given that a certain antipathy toward Mises.org people has been expressed by various editors, the best course of action is to collaborate and improve the project/article – but that does not mean creating instability WRT any particular article. Moreover, what is the situation now as to this article? Do we have one or two editors, who in their judgment, feel that Murphy won't or doesn't meet notability guidelines? Well, that question was brought up at the AfD and the community was not convinced that notability did not exist. JFC, if he's not so damn notable then nobody is going to view the article! So ...... Stop pushing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, @Srich32977: - On the topic of templates, would you like to do the honors and undo the recent removal of the templates which point out the excessive reliance on primary and affiliated sources for this article? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no template about "affiliated sources" and such sources are used all the time in Bios as refs. Please do not make up policy on the fly. If that is what you were claiming were primary sources, please state so in the relevant section above. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eight of the fourteen footnote citations are to primary sources and one more is an interview hosted by a questionable "newspaper" -- do the right thing and restore the template. That template will help alert editors that they can help work on this article by adding content cited to better references. Do the right thing and undo your removal. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we have 8/14 "primary source" footnotes, this does not address problems with either the footnotes or the notability issue. Primary sources are reliable when WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Also, we have two dozen sources listed above. I imagine incorporating them into the article will further underwrite Thornton's notability. The article has been tagged with a BLP refimprove template to encourage the incorporation. – S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insert: Hey, good template, Srich. I have about 30 chicago and mainstream economists who could use it - most of them half unsourced anyway. At my leisure, of course. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Specifico, if you spent half the energy on improving this article as you spend on trying to damage it, Thornton's bio would be more complete, the reader would be more informed, and Wikipedia would be richer. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have two dozen sources yet. We have two dozen lines in a google search, and if they have anything encyclopedic and noteworthy to say then such content should be added to the article. Until then, we have nothing more than a to-do list for those who have reason to expect Thornton will turn out to be more accomplished a figure than is currently apparent. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Thornton&oldid=1207578666"