Talk:Power and Market

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Economics

This redirect 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

Politics: Libertarianism

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
	Libertarianism portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism.

Questions on publishing history[edit]

My gleanings on the history of this are a little inconsistent. The Institute for Humane Studies puslished the 1970 and 1977 editions, but Amazon thinks they were published elsewhere. Your contributions are welcome. -- RayBirks 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious "better source needed" tag[edit]

There is no reason why a "better source" than Salerno's introduction, which was published with the work, could be "needed" for the claim that Power and Market "was originally written as the third volume of Man, Economy, and State, but was published separately eight years later". Only someone with access to private papers by Rothbard could know about the book's publication situation, and that is what Salerno's introduction claims to have. The edition that publishes the books together is the only edition of either work that is widely used today, and no one has questioned this manner of publishing the works. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is true that only someone with access to certain private documents could know something. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia must go with what WP:RS says. This is not "spurious" at all (Cf. WP:PASSIVE).

That being said, I found actual RS sources to support the claim in the article. Saxones288 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you found is also written by Salerno, so I am very confused, but alright.Thiagovscoelho (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources needed[edit]

All the cited sources in this article appear to be self-published and not independent. WP:SPS says that self-published sources are "largely not acceptable as sources", and WP:ABOUTSELF #5 rules out any ABOUTSELF argument for long passages. Do any WP:BESTSOURCES describe the book? Llll5032 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

If this book lacks sources describing it, it is probably because for many years it has only been published together with Man, Economy, and State. I suggest merging this article with Man, Economy, and State. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]