This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
James M. Buchanan is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Should the body mention Nancy MacLean's book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, and its claims about Buchanan's views and influence, as well as criticisms of the book's claims by other academics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Survey
Exclude. There is a serious ethical problem here. The fact that the book exists is most certainly relevant to a biography of JMB, so that militates in favor of "include." However, the book is a malicious work of fantasy. Including it is on par with including, in a bio of Barack Obama, one of the several racially motivated books attacking Obama that appeared during his presidency. Giving airtime to meritless works of character assassination encourages production of more of them. This militates in favor of "exclude." Because this conflict cannot be easily resolved, I rely on Strunk and White: "When in doubt, leave it out." 24.13.83.67 (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Larry SiegelReply[reply]
Any biography, by anyone, about anyone, can be dismissed as a 'malicious work of fantasy'. DS (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Include. There used to be two paragraphs on this in the article[1], primarily focused on criticism of the book's claims. Given that the book is by an academic and received substantial coverage, I think it's reasonable to say that it has affected Buchanan's legacy and people's understanding of him. That the text primarily focuses on [well-reasoned] criticisms of the book solves related to BLP (Buchanan isn't tarnished with the addition of the content, but rather the text primarily defends him). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Include, but shorter than what it was. This aspect received coverage, so the Wikipedia article should address the book and claims the books is a conspiracy theory. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Include, but make sure to include the reviews to ensure balance. Volunteer Marek 08:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exclude - Overall this has relatively low WEIGHT and no enduring life impact so just not BLP important. That there’s a mention in a fraction of a not-bestseller book isn’t worth a mention, much less going into others views about it. Come back if it leads to he gets fired or there’s a lawsuit - but even then, just state the book mentions him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't just "mention" him, it's about him. And he's been dead since 2013, so BLP doesn't apply. Also, dead people don't have jobs so they can't be fired. Include. DS (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:DragonflySixtyseven mmm will point out that in Amazon the name doesn’t seem to even be in the first chapter, and it’s not in the title. The preface certainly seems to say he was key for things about right-wing positions or tactics, but isn’t talking much about him there - I will presume it does go into how he was being involved later on. And yes, make that BIO, but again unless the book leads to something other than a dispute over the book then I’m not seeing it as needed here. I am generally restrained about what to let in, your mileage may vary. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:DragonflySixtyseven Still nope. That source may think the "book on public choice economics" is a trimmed-down bio of Buchanon, but the general view seems more to be it's mostly something else, for the reviews shown in Amazon or Google, and even at the cites in the thread-noted article two paragraphs under discussion.
- The Vox cite is titled "Even the intellectual left is drawn to conspiracy theories about the right. Resist them.; How not to write about “radical” libertarians." Says of it "MacLean’s book, published by Penguin Random House, has been hailed as a kind of skeleton key to the rightward political turn in American political economy " and "Conspiracy theory in the guise of intellectual history" -- this seems saying the book is about making claims about the Koch brothers and Cato institute and so on. Buchanon may be (is) prominent in the many topics, but Buchanan seems a small fraction of all the topics. Again, note chapter 1 of 12 visible in Amazon does not seem to even mention him.
- The Guardian cite (stated as an Opinion piece) -is titled "A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy; James McGill Buchanan’s vision of totalitarian capitalism has infected public policy in the US. Now it’s being exported". It describes the book as a history -- but not as history of Buchanan. Again I note the book title has "The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America". So Buchanan is just part of it, though from preface he is given credit/blame for being a source of vision, one that has infected the UK as well as the US. SO again -- he's part of the book but the book is not about describing him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only is Buchanan mentioned repeatedly in the Introduction of the book, the first two paragraphs of the Intro are about him (as is the first paragraph of the Conclusion). There are more than 1,000 results for "Buchanan" in the book, and he's mentioned in every chapter (incl. the one you say you could not find him mentioned in). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not visible in Amazon. In Amazon "Look Inside", we are shown the cover (no Buchanan), the 'Praise for' book reviews (some mention Buchanan), Introduction (as said earlier it seems a prologue blaming right-wing on Buchanan ... but isn't talking about him), Prologue (no Buchanan there) and Chapter 1 (no Buchanan there). Chapter 1 shown is -- pg 13 Brown vs Board of Ed. and no Buchanan, page 14 Jim Crow, pg 15 Miss Davenport, 16 Stokes, 17 NAACP, 18 Principle Jones, p21 Kilpatrick, p22 Senator Byrd, pg 23 Byrd Organization ... The name "Buchanan" is not in any of this. For the other part visible in Amazon ("Prologue") - I see page 2 Calhoun not Buchanan, page 3 ditto, page 4 ditto, page 5, page 6, page 8, 9, 10, 11 ... nothing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything that I said in my comment above was 100% correct. I do not understand any of your arguments for the exclusion of the book, in particular those that center on the extent that Buchanan is covered in a book which you've not read and do not have access to. The doubling-down is puzzling given that you've not read the book and have been presented with information which confirms that Buchanan is covered at length and depth in the book. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Markbassett: Buchanan is long dead and how well a book sold has never been part of Wikipedia’s reliability standard. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Horse Eye Jack Thank you for the ping. Few book sales is the “low WEIGHT” mentioned at the start. And unless mention of a book leads to something - widespread reputation, firing, lawsuit, divorce, *SOME*thing.... then it has shown no enduring impact so is just not biographically important. (Please pardon my mistake of WP:BLP instead of WP:BIO.) Some trivial mention in an obscure text that did nothing - should not be included. I will say this one isn’t that obscure - Amazon says it’s 104 in a political conservatism - but the bio will not be hurt by skipping two paragraphs of neutrality-tagged stuff that talks about the book rather than Buchanan’s life. Again, at most just mention the book mentions him - not details about what the book says and refutations thereof. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Include (with critical reviews). Doesn't appear to be trivial or ephemeral at all. ---Sluzzelintalk 01:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Include I agree with most of the above. Yes, of course, a prominent work of scholarship like this on the subject of Buchanan should be detailed at length in the body of the article, with the dissenting views also mentioned afterwards. Talrolande (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm worried that it'll be difficult to provide a fair summary of Democracy in Chains, the claims about Buchanan, its reviews and the criticisms therein without creating a WP:WEIGHT issue. Buchanan was a major figure in the world of economics for decades before DoC came along, but the article is pretty slim at the moment. In a perfect world the solution would be to expand the rest as well, but this isn't a perfect world... --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, minor note, but DoC is a popular history by a scholar rather than a scholarly work per se. It's outside her usual area of specialty and published under the mass market Penguin imprint. Still an RS, but relevant to weight. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RaiderAspect, are you aware of commentaries, reviews, critiques of DoC by notable economists or economic historians? (sincere question - I lack the expertise). ---Sluzzelintalk 22:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Include A section on criticism of Buchanan is warranted given the large amount of public discussion around Democracy in Chains. Many major newspapers and magazines have devoted articles to criticism of Buchanan and coverage of MacLean's book, including the Atlantic, Slate, New York Times, Washington Post, Salon, NPR, The Nation, The Guardian, Jacobin, and The New Republic. Several of these articles strongly denounce Buchanan. For an example, see "The beliefs of economist James Buchanan conflict with basic democratic norms. Here’s why." by Michael Chwe in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/25/the-beliefs-of-economist-james-buchanan-conflict-with-basic-democratic-norms-heres-why/
To add to this article: Buchanan's 1980 visit to Chile, where he advised the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
