Talk:Mises Institute

Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as "cult"

RS Gene Callahan of Cardiff University used to be a prominent "scholar" of the Institute. Now he has repudiated it as a cult akin to scientology, which is a very reasonable comparison.

Since Callahan (per his publications, Ph.D., etc) is an RS and knows the Institute intimately from an "insider" perspective, this seems to be a relevant criticism of the Institute. So I added it. What do you all think about adding it to the "criticism" section of this entry? Steeletrap (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you saw my response. I reverted the addition. Basically we can't use it because it's WP:SELFPUB and involves a third party third parties. Secondly, the opining of whether a group is a cult is more of a sociologist's or psychologist's job. Without looking at Callahan's CV etc, I'd guess he does not qualify in this regard. So if you've got some other published RS that describes them as members of a cult, please provide that. – S. Rich (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By your definition of third party, you could never use a SELFPUB source to describe anything (a country an institute a university etc). The definition clearly refers to people. Steeletrap (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

When the people of the institution are described as being members of a cult, they are the third parties whom the SPS policy is designed to protect. Please revert this addition. – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Mises Institute is affiliated with hundreds of scholars and thousands of "students." Equating all of them to a "third party" is like equating criticism of the economic methodology of "Marxists" or the historical views of "neo-Confederates" to statements about a third party. Steeletrap (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Srich: This looks like more whitewashing. English speaking academics really do not need a PhD in social psychology to use the word cult. Any PhD will do, maybe even civilians without a PhD may use the word. Murray Rothbard called fractional reserve banking "fraud" -- do we remove that from his article because he was not the a US Attorney filing an indictment? @Steeletrap: I think this text would be clarified by more, not less detail from the source. Then if other editors are still concerned I suggest proceeding to DR to get uninvolved opinions. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Steele, please notice that the policy does not say "third persons". It refers to parties, which includes non-person entities. (In lawsuits, the plaintiffs and defendants, persons and non-persons, are parties. When you buy life insurance and name your favorite charity as the beneficiary, that charity is the "third party beneficiary".) While I appreciate the effort to compromise, the wording does not cut the mustard. Cult is an ad hominem remark about groups, not institutions. The analogy to Marxists et al only goes so far because there is a lot of non-blog RS regarding them and criticisms of them, as a group, does not need blog remarks to reference the description. Please revert the entire section. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem remarks are personal attack. Describing an institution (such as the Church of Scientology) as a "cult" is not a personal attack but rather an abstract description of that institution. It is your value judgment that cults are bad; such a value judgment is not entailed by the definition of "cult". People could have neutral or positive feelings towards cults generally or one cult specifically. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

! Yes, by definition ad hominem remarks are personal, and when you repeat what he says about LvMI you cannot escape the personal and personnel aspects of his remarks. If there is non-blog RS out there describing LvMI as a cult, please provide. I wouldn't care if Callahan said LvMI was the greatest thing since sliced bread, he is making a remark about a third party/third parties and such blog remarks are not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I'll try it this way: Callahan is saying "They are a cult." With this in mind, I'd hope you'd put aside your personal distain for the Misesians there (however much you agree with Callahan) and focus on the WP:SPS aspects of his remarks. Please find RS from secondary, non-blog sources that say they are a cult. I'd have no objection whatsoever. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Srich: SR, ad hominem is the use of a disparaging personal statement about a writer, where such personal disparagement is used instead of (and as if it were) a refutation of the facts or theories stated by the writer. You've misused the term here. This is not an article about a theory, for example Austrian Business Cycle Theory, espoused by vMI Fellows. If, in that article one were to say "Malinvestment is just another example of the cult malarkey swampcrud from those wingnut backscratchers" -- well then: That would be an ad hominem. But this article is describing the Institute itself, its operations and its activities. The opinion of an insider who left the vMI and his reasons for doing so are directly relevant to an understanding of the institution. They are one man's opinion and presented as such, but they are not an oblique or logically illegitimate attack on the research or theories of the vMI Fellows. This is not an ad hominem fallacy. Here's an interesting bit for your review:

[1]. SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• P.S... RE: Your statement to Steeletrap above, "I'd hope you'd put aside your personal distain for the Misesians there (however much you agree with Callahan)." That is an ad hominem attack and should be stricken. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It was an ad hominem attack, since Rich was singling out some (supposedly biased/unobjective) element of my personal character as germane to the issue at hand. Conversely, saying "Scientology is a cult" or "Marxism is a cult" is not a personal attack on Scientologists/Marxists. Again, it's your value judgment and not a fact that cults are bad and that membership in a cult reflects badly on an individual. (For instance, I think the U.S. military is cultish but (criticisms of its diminishing but still striking homophobia and transphobia and sexism aside) certainly have respect for the institution, and acknowledge the necessity of its "cultishness". Indeed, my estimation of an individual is moderately increased if s/he has been a member of this cultish institution.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether LvMI or the people associated with it are cultist, a cult, cult members, or even whether they throw great keggers. The issue is the source. If Callahan had published some non-blog material saying they were a cult, we could use it. But the material is in his personal blog. He is a published expert in the field of economics, so blog comments about economics can be used. But he is talking about his personal experiences with the people at LvMI, not the field of economics. For this reason, and this reason alone, his comments do not belong in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy you mention refers to factual statements, particularly potentially damaging ones (e.g., "x Mises Fellow was having an affair with y mises fellow"!). The point is that factual assertions have to be vetted and peer reviewed. I don't believe it refers to opinions, and it's Callahan's opinion that LvMI is a cult. Steeletrap (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy uses the term "claims", which can be pure opinion or factual in nature. It is not restricted to damaging or laudatory claims. The policy does not deal with vetting or peer review. Callahan is making a statement about third parties, it is in his personal blog, it regarding a subject in which he is not an expert, and it does not belong in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

 – A RSN on the issue of the callahan blog has been opened at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The closing of the RSN is located here: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com – S. Rich (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Updated link post archiving. 03:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article text to reflect the close of the RSN. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of RS based on WP:Blogs

I added a source from Bleeding Heart Libertarians, a website which serves as a forum for academic discourse among libertarians, most of whom are tenured university professors (see: here for a list of contributors). The BHL source from Steve Horwitz criticized the Mises Institute's association with racists and Holocaust Deniers. Another user deleted this source based on WP:Blogs; this is a flagrant misunderstanding of policy, since WP:Blogs only applies to self-published sources (meaning sources published by one person), and the content of BHL is published and reviewed by a dozen or so academics. Steeletrap (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the policy verbatim: "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. [emphasis added]" So, even if BHL is composed of academics, they are a group blog. (Also, it may qualify as unacceptable BLOG material under the other criteria.) Accordingly, no matter how distinguished the contributors seem to be, it is "largely not acceptable". Also, where are the academic reviews, let alone academic peer-reviews, of BHL? And since the blog mentions BLPs, the greatest care must be used. The WP:BURDEN is on OP to show why we should include it. I submit that the burden has not been met. – S. Rich (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the Horwitz text presents Horwitz' opinion as Horwitz' opinion. Horwitz amply explains his views in the cited source, which directly and straightforwardly supports the neutral text which you keep removing. Your denial of WP policy with a series of straw man talk page and edit summary links, BLP, RS, BURDEN etc. doesn't invalidate this text. The text is short and simple. Nobody has proposed stating in WP's voice that Mises Institute is a den of evil. Please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is what kind of WP:RS do we have with BHL, not what it contains. Is it vetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Is it a WP:NEWSORG? If it was, then we wouldn't have an issue about reliability. But, as per the guideline I have quoted, it cannot be used if it is a group blog. (Which it is.) Horwitz and the BHLs might have opinions about a lot of subjects, but his relevant field is economics, not the composition or character of organizations or people associated with an organization. Moreover, since this SPS involves third parties we cannot use it. (And this guideline applies whether Horwitz et al are saying positive or negative things.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You're throwing up an increasing number of policy mentions which do not support your position. Your policy link increments notwithstanding, you have not provided a policy-based issue which relates to the text which you dispute. A single valid argument is what's required to impeach the text at this point. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is BHL a group blog? – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO: You have not answered the question. Without addressing the issues, you cannot say the BLP issue is "debunked". – S. Rich (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Here. [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

User:RL0919 was addressing the question of whether 3RR applied, not whether the blog is a BLP violation. In this case you have taken the BLP one step further -- Ron Paul is the subject of both the original and new blog posts. The question remains: Is Bleeding Hearts Libertarians a group blog? – S. Rich (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"The in-article content is a claim about an organization, not an individual, so per WP:BLPGROUP it wouldn't get the same treatment. So my advice is to proceed as if this were a normal, non-BLP dispute." SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's quite surprising that you are not understanding the policies and their applications after they've been cited to you by several editors in this matter. Nonetheless, assuming good faith, please review: [3]. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to be clear that my comments on SRich's talk page were limited to exactly what I addressed there: The content that he referenced does not appear to be a BLP violation. That does not imply that the blog is therefore acceptable as a reliable source. You should take that matter to WP:RSN, if you haven't already. --RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To be sure, any source may be vetted on RSN. The only BLP issue was the serial deletions of text using "BLP" as a trump card where it is clearly inapplicable. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, boy, another crappy source used. Since Srich obviously doesn't want to go to a noticeboard on this or the other one (and others I may find if read through quick) I guess I'll do it. User:Carolmooredc 14:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable scholars section

We need to create one of these to show our readers some of the notable figures who have contributed to the Institute. Two of the more well-known Mises Scholars are Joseph Sobran and Sam Francis, both of whom were prominent conservative journalists for years. Each of them came to the Mises Institute after being banished from mainstream conservative publications for their racism. Steeletrap (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "notable" should not be used, lest some WP editors confuse that use with the WP:NOTABLE standard? How about a different word? SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "noteworthy"? It's more or less a synonym of "notable", but it doesn't have the same policy-based connotation.

By the way: I also think we should in our list of noteworthy scholars provide their institutional affiliation (meaning those institutions which said scholars have done academic work for and associated with over an extended period of time). For example, next to the name Walter Block, we'd list Loyola University New Orleans; next to Joseph Sobran and James J. Martin, we'd list The Institute for Historical Review; next to Hans-Hoppe, we'd list University of Nevada, Las Vegas; next to Thomas Woods we'd list Suffolk County Community College and League of the South; next to Thomas DiLorenzo we'd list the League as well as Loyola University, Baltimore; next to Sam Francis we'd list The Council of Conservative Citizens and so forth. Steeletrap (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems correct to me. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Importance of non-web accessible sources

I note that, in the article by Prof. Horwitz here: [4], he refers to a body of writing by Mises Institute-affiliated authors which has not been archived on the web. It will be important to research and cite those publications as we develop the history and intellectual traditions of the Mises Institute. I have not located a source for the printed materials, but I have a few leads in mind. I hope that others will join in the search. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The institute as a cult

While certain RS commentators may have opinions about individuals being members of a cult, it is WP:SYN to say LvMI is a cult. E.g., they are saying A: "This person is a member of a cult". B: "This person has been a member of LvMI or has written in LvMI publications." Therefore C: "LvMI is a cult." – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, unless the named economists are also Scientologists or something, one wonders what non-LvMI cult they are being said to belong to. — goethean 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not what is meant by WP:SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hatting two comments about editing sequence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Noting that SPECIFICO had commented shortly before (mistakenly removing Goethean's comment) I will reply. There are two related problems: 1. We have SYN going on because analysis about individuals is being posted and that analysis does not directly support a characterization of LvMI as a cult. 2. If LvMI is to be called a "cult" or "greatest thing since sliced bread", we need RS that says so directly. If the material is non-RS/blog stuff, we cannot add it. (And thank you, Goethean, for the restoration of SPECIFICO's comment. I was going to do so as part of this edit.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) To be clear, I was mistaken in my earlier edit. I saw this dif [5] and did not realize the mistake had been corrected. That is my my edit summary said "Reverted to revision 572530870 by Goethean: Restore what looks like a mistaken revision of another's comment." User:Goethean had in fact restored the comment one minute before I made my edit. – S. Rich (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just put back some stuff you cut out because it was a bad idea. Wanna talk about it? MilesMoney (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Critics have...compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult."

Restarting the discussion, we have the following in the lede "Critics have called it "right wing" and compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult." In the text we have Selgin and Ferrara talking about Rothbard. Where do they say anything about the LvM Institute? The implication of including such material – which WP:SYN prohibits – is that the Institution and people associated with it are members of a cult. The view (of Selgin and Ferrra) about Rothbard may have relevance in the Rothbard article, but not here because their views do not directly support the implications involved. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you being a bit disingenuous here? You can't have forgotten that we know of a public debate between two Institute members over the issue of whether it's a cult. MilesMoney (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So? It is really annoying to see clearly agenda driven editors waste a lot of time to denegrate something that they obviously dislike. The primary problem with this particular little nugget of hate is that it has nothing to do with the institute and everything to do with Rothbard. A more clear example of WP:COAT you don't normally see. MM if you and your group want to denegrate Rothbard, do it in the right article. I can definately say I am getting a little tired of your crusade of the WP:TRUTH. Arzel (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're factually mistaken: the sources I'm talking about mention the Institute, not Rothbard. Please focus on the facts instead of personally attacking me. It's counterproductive and makes it hard to work with you. MilesMoney (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Please focus on the facts instead of personally attacking me." Says the guy accusing people of being part of a cult. 74.108.18.128 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please try not to be wrong about the facts. The article is not claiming that the Institute is a cult; we can't do such a thing. It is, however, accurately stating that critics have called it a cult, which is something else entirely. If you don't understand the distinction, you need to read WP:NPOV until you do. MilesMoney (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Some guy's blog isn't a significant source. You're poisoning the well by putting "Some guy said this group is a cult!" in the opening of the article. 74.108.18.128 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous? Not at all. The policy says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Selgin and Ferrara are talking about Rothbard, and Rothbard alone. The implied conclusion that "it's a cult." violates policy. We cannot say this because Selgin and Ferrara do not explicitly say the Institution is a cult. – S. Rich (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What's disingenuous is that you're overlooking the other sources. MilesMoney (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What other sources? If they are not in the article they certainly do not directly support anything. See WP:RS#Context matters. – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you really going to claim you forgot about Callahan and Murphy, both of whom are in the article and quarreled about the Institute being a cult? MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not making any such claim. Callahan's blog (recently reinserted) does not address the institute as a cult. And suggesting that it might properly give support to that notion is against consensus. Murphy's personal blog does not support the notion that the institute is a cult. He says "Some cult, huh?" Besides, Murphy's personal blog is the subject of the unresolved RSN at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy. Again, alluding to other resources build the encyclopedia. Please specify RS we can use. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Paleolibertarian support for LvMI edits (BRD)

I removed this piece from Reason about the writing of the Ron Paul Newsletters; other than mentioning LvMI, it does not discuss the institution. See: [6]. User:MilesMoney reverted here: [7]. With WP:BRD in mind, how is it that Sanchez and Weigel are saying that paleolibertarians supported the founding of LvMI? They simply say Rockwell was the the founder and do not give credit (or blame) to PLs in general as supporting the founding of LvMI. – S. Rich (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Rockwell was the founder and was part of the paleolibertarian movement. That's enough right there. Do you want them to say that all paleolibertarians supported the Institute? MilesMoney (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But you are making an illogical stretch. E.g., A: 'Rockwell was PL'. B: 'Rockwell founded LvMI'. Therefore C: 'PLs/the PL movement supported/founded LvMI.' Problem is, Sanchez & Weigel are not saying this. (It not a matter of what I (or you or anyone) want them to say – we edit WP based upon what they actually say.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What was Rockwell's role in the PL movement? MilesMoney (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

He is worshiped as the god of the PLs. Virgins (male and female) are sacrificed to him regularly in both public and private PL ceremonies. And LvMI is the secret headquarters of the PL movement where they secretly implant biochips in the various people who happen to take courses or simply drop by. (Thankfully, I've never been to Auburn, AL, and I am immune...I am immune...I am immune from their influence.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then as the PL "god", his support for the Institute means the PL's supported it. Glad that's settled. MilesMoney (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, though – you won't be able to use my talkpage comment as RS in this regard. (BTW, are you a virgin? If so, there is a first-class Delta flight to Alburn AL waiting for you at the nearest airport.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to politely ask you to give me a serious answer. MilesMoney (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously it does not matter what Rothbard's role was with the PLs. This article is about LvMI, not Rockwell or the PLs. We have RS that describes his role with LvMI, and we can use that RS. But using other RS that describes his PL leanings, leadership, philosophy, etc., and which does not directly support article text about LvMI, is improper. (And as stated above, the mere fact that Sanchez & Weigel mention Rockwell as the founder of LvMI does not mean they say the "paleo libertarian movement which supported the founding of" LvMI. They mention the January 1992 Report (LvMI was founded 1982), but does that report talk about LvMI? Moreover, their article is about the Ron Paul Newsletters. We cannot use it.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The part you object to is simply framing for the quote. Without it, the quote's purpose and relevance is much less clear. MilesMoney (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I object to the entire passage. It seeks to address PL-movement support for LvMI, but the reference provided does not document such support. It only says Rothbard was PL and had founded LvMI. (A similar situation exists for the other passes. E.g., David Friedman et al.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Objecting to the content of a reliable source is pointless. Get over it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not objecting to the content of the source. I object to how it is used in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're gonna have to be more specific. Do you object to what it says about Rothbard's plan to rope in the rednecks? Do you think it's irrelevant to an article about the Institute? MilesMoney (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[Inserted]. As above, Rothbard's plans were whatever they were. What support do we have that says LvMI was part of the plan? None. It is conjecture to say LvMI was part of the plan, and WP is not the place for such conjecture. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich - If you have reasoned concerns, based on policy, with respect to the article text or sources please state them clearly and with diffs to text and policy so that other editors can discuss them. You have failed to do so. In order to ensure that you are understood, please refrain from any humor, irony, sarcasm, parody, or other distracting insertions, including smileyfaces and extraneous links. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Lighten up. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You can pose as the clown prince of WP if you like, but that stance is not going to lead to improvement of the articles here. If you can't post on topic your efforts are wasted. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The question remains: Does the Sanchez and Weigel article directly support the assertion that the PL movement supported the founding of LvMI? – S. Rich (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Bold edits -- moving on to Discussion (BRD)

User:MilesMoney – it seems you disagree with some other edits I made. One: Here you restored the mention of Time magazine and National Review ([8]). If they do not describe LvMI as a cult, how do we justify keeping this in the article supporting a description of LvMI as a cult? And two, here: [9] you restored other material which discusses people associated with LvMI, but which do not touch upon LvMI itself. Keeping in mind that WP:RS says "Context matters ... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. [bold in the original]" how can we keep this material in the article? – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Both Buckley and Doherty called it a cult, and Time and NR bring this up, so it's not original research. MilesMoney (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Time and NR pieces do not use the word "cult". Where am I missing it? Please help. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Who was David Koresh? MilesMoney (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Koresh is not the issue. We cannot say "Koresh was part/leader of a cult, others have compared LvMI to Koresh, therefore LvMI is a cult." – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me out here: what could Doherty have intended by comparing Rothbard to Koresh? MilesMoney (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But what was Doherty saying about LvMI? E.g., LvMI in particular and specifically? The reference must directly support the edits we add. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Who are Rothbard's followers? MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The zombiefied sacrificed virgins. So what? The WP editing question is where is the RS that is On Point about the followers and their role at LvMI? – S. Rich (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP editing question remains: What was Doherty saying about LvMI? – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Yes or no? MilesMoney (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The reference cited – Jonah Goldberg – talks about Doherty, but Goldberg does not even mention LvMI. So how does that reference work to directly support anything about LvMI? Because Goldberg is the cited reference it does not matter to this analysis what Doherty says. Rather, if Doherty has something pertinent to LvMI, then Doherty should be cited. But we cannot go and say "Goldberg says Doherty has said something about LvMI." WP:PROVEIT applies, and it does not matter if I've read something or not. So, as before, I ask what does Doherty say? – S. Rich (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a simple question and you tried to dodge it. Fact is, you haven't read the article. We all know this now because Doherty didn't say it, Buckley did. I got that detail wrong (by accident, of course), but you never corrected me because you never read the article. I think you should take a break from this until you have time to do your homework. Until you do, I'm not sure what you can contribute. MilesMoney (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Miles, I'm quite sure you missed Doherty by mistake, but I asked you twice "what does he say?" (Basically it was an invitation to you to correct your own mistake.) In any event, if Buckley says something, then we must use what he says directly to support the article. Doing so, by citing Buckley, will satisfy PROVEIT. Using Goldberg does not. – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to discuss this with you once you return from your break. Until then, it would be counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Talk with you tomorrow. In the meantime, feel free to add anything in response to my request that we get citations from Buckley which directly support material in the article. Good night. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Murphy blog as RS for article (BRD)

In this diff [10], I removed the Robert Murphy blog citation as SPS. The removal was reverted here [11]. With the WP:BRD process in mind, I open the discussion with the following points supporting removal of the Murphy citation:

1. The citation is Robert Murphy's "personal blog" [12] and is WP:SPS.
2. Murphy is an economist and his relevant field is economics.
3. The cited page is not about the subject of economics. It discusses his personal history with Mises.org and various people associated with it. Accordingly, he is not discussing something within his area of expertise.
4. Simply having had experiences with LvMI & its people does not qualify him as an expert. Nor has his work about LvMI been published by reliable third party publications.
5. As the blog entry is discussing living third parties, the restrictions of WP:ABOUTSELF apply.
6. Other than being an adjunct scholar with LvMI and having his work published by LvMI, I find nothing that shows Murphy having any official role in the administration of LvMI.

Comments are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

These range from tenuous to unsupportable and none of this is in the spirit of the policy you are claiming to apply. The source is proper and reflects a discussion which has been joined by and commented on by others affiliated or familiar with the Institute. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh? Would you specify by number which are tenuous or unsupportable, and explain why. And what discussion has there been about the Murphy blog? A search in the talkpage archive for "Murphy" comes up with nothing. This thread is the first time Murphy's blog has been brought up on this talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please support your proposed deletion with diffs to the article text and specific WP policy text you feel is violated. It will help if you also provide quotes from the cited references you feel support your view. A clear and complete statement of your view will facilitate comments not just from me but from all who come here to discuss. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The diffs are in the first line of the discussion. They pertain to the link to Murphy's blog. The policy and guidelines are specified with links to WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS. – S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your previous comment, in which you appear to misread me to be referring to WP talkpage archives rather than to the discussion among Mises-affiliated scholars again raises the concern which Miles expressed above -- namely, that you have not taken the time or effort to make yourself familiar with the cited sources and other references on the matter under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is discussion on point elsewhere, you might supply those diffs or links for the benefit of other editors. (I have no idea what those diffs are, much less determine how they are pertinent.) The only question posed for discussion here is whether the Murphy blog is acceptable. If there are other refs which pertain to the discussion, please specify them and explain how they make the Murphy blog an acceptable source. – S. Rich (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've responded to your statement as best I can. You haven't supported any of your "points" with evidence. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh? No evidence?

1. The link to Murphy's blog is right there.
2. The article about Murphy describes him as an economist.
3. The blog speaks for itself.
4. As with #3, the content of the blog post speaks for itself -- how does one argue that Murphy is talking about anything other than his experiences at LvMI. And where is there anything that he has published by third parties about LvMI?
5. As stated in the point made, Murphy is talking about third parties and the WP guidance/policy applies.
6. If Murphy has no official role at LvMI other than publishing or lecturing, what relevance does his non-Mises.org blog post have to do with LvMI. His personal blog relates his personal experience, nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not answering the question, so you're just wasting our time here. Do I need to repeat the question for you or did you understand it the first time? MilesMoney (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you are the one who restored the Murphy's personal blog citation. The WP:ONUS is on you to justify retention of the blog as RS. You have done nothing in this regard, and SPECIFICO simply avoids addressing the points. A discussion is needed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I have amply addressed your "points" on various threads, to the extent you've articulated any substantive issues. I'm going to advise you again to reflect before you post personal remarks and other off-topic material which does not contribute to the discussion of content and policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com/blog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy

– S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, when you can't get your way, move it to some other page. MilesMoney (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to WP:PROVEIT. You were editing today, but I saw nothing here. Well, you should feel free to defend the blog on the RSN. Some article talk pages don't get a lot of views, so such discussions generally benefit from wider exposure. – S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not my job to make your case for you. If you can't explain your objection, I have nothing to do. MilesMoney (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo confederate & SPS criticisms (BRD)

In this edit [13] SPECIFICO reverted several changes I made.

1. Jeffrey Tucker is removed as a key person. (While not specified in the article, there is RS to support this, which can be and will be supplied. Added comment: I recall, per SPLC, he was research director. Not a big deal. But SPECIFICOs revert was wholesale and these other BRD criticisms remain. 03:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC))
2. SPLC has certainly "criticized" LvMI as neo confederate, thus this remark belongs in the criticism section.
3. The SPLC paragraph was combined with other SPLC remarks. They do not use the term "far right", and my edit quoted the exact term they used – "hard right". (I do read the material.)
4. One SPLC reference does use the term neo confederate, but the other does not. (In any case, repeating the SPLC allegation of LvMI as neo confederate twice is UNDUE.)
5. They do use the term "anti-immigrant", which I added (and SPECIFICO deleted).
6. The characterization of Rothbard's view as "anti-lesbian", because he used the term lesbian in a commentary (whether favorably or not) does not make him an anti-lesbian. Saying so is OR.
7. SPECIFICO's edits also disrupt the citation improvements I made.

S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)03:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Unless you can link your complaints to policy, you're wasting our time. I suggest you take a break, do some of your homework, and then come back. Until you do your homework, your break isn't over. MilesMoney (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich:

1. If you are concerned by "wholesale revert" please don't make several unrelated edits in a single bundle. In this case each element of my revert was appropriate.
2. SPLC does not state that this is a criticism, it is their description. "Criticism" is your interpretation.
3. The text does not quote the term "far-right" to be SPCL's exact words. The meaning is clear and ordinary English usage.
4. Again, you mis-state the facts. The article does not repeat the SPLC "neoconfederate" statement. The word neo-confederate occurs for the second time in the context of Gene Callahan's remarks in support of Rockwell.
5. Your representation of SPLC's view could be read as disparaging of vMI scholars who are not "anti-immigrant" and a more specific treatment already occurs in the article text.
6. Again you misrepresent the cited reference, which details a pattern of blame placed on diverse individuals whom Rothbard tags as "lesbian".
7. Wouldn't it be grand if you'd reflect on whether that comment is constructive and strike it?

I think these responses show why your edit was reverted and should not be in the article. Please reflect. SPECIFICO talk 04:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to add one point: Let's pretend that SRich is right: neo-confederate is a criticism. So what?

This is Wikipedia, not the von Mises Annual Love-Fest. We're allowed to include criticism. In fact, we're obligated to. We shouldn't care if it offends some fanboys, so long as it follows the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of under construction template & undoing edits undertaken

{{underconstruction}} on a section means the concerned editor is working on the particular article or section. While sometimes helpful, there is no template requirement that pending edits be explained. Earlier edit summaries said more work was needed and to be done. Undoing the work that had been done by not waiting for 2 hours and 9 minutes before getting into the pending work, and then removing the template is, putting it as politely as possible, hardly cooperative editing. – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Communication is the basis of collaboration. You've previously mounted and then abandoned these templates, also without explanation. It serves no purpose if you do not share with others the improvements on which you seek collaboration. Please do so if you choose to reinsert the template. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I communicated. Two edit summaries communicated that more work was needed and the underconstruction template communicated that more work was underway. The template also communicates the words "several days". But it was removed 2 hours and 9 minutes after I posted it. The communication could have gone two ways. E.g., "Srich, I see you made such-and-such change. How about if we word it this way....?" No, supposedly the article is improved by reverting my changes and then not asking if I was done, and by removing the template. Hack away, SPECIFICO. Hack away. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Polemicist

Does anyone genuinely doubt that Rothbard is considered by reliable sources to be a polemicist? If so, they should do some basic research until they're competent. Start with this. MilesMoney (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Boettke article does use the term polemist to describe Rothbard, but I don't think it talks about "the split". In this regard, it does not directly support the material presented. The better description of Rothbard is the one in his article -- political theorist & economist. "Libertarian" can get thrown in too because it is used in the first sentence of Rothbard's lede. But adding the mention of this aspect of Rothbard's resume is WP:UNDUE. The article is about LvMI and this is a side issue. Still, we have to present the description of Rothbard with a minimum of POV. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Boettke paper serves Rothbard up as a libertarian economist and theorist. Boettke's personal opinion comes forward to say that he thinks Rothbard is not a true Austrian economist but a property rights economist. Boettke's opinion comes forward again to say he thinks Rothbard chose the path of polemicist. Neither of these Boettke opinions are solid enough to remove Rothbard from the category of Austrian economists or libertarians as opposed to someone who might be a career polemicist without portfolio. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, we seek to have consistency between various descriptions from article to article. Calling him a polemicist in one article, a polecat in another, and a pole dancer in a third is not encyclopedic. (And I like polemicists!) – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@srichYour recent bizarre attempts at off-topic humor, smiley faces and proffers of personal rumination in lieu of bona fide WP policy are disruptive. In the context of your other recent actions, they contibute to a pattern of tendentious editing. Whatever you are going through, please take a break, step away, and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What bullshit you put forward rather than a focused defense of "polemicist". Please stay with the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Remain calm, binksernet. Not clear what defense is needed for widely sourced content. Rothbard is a polemicist and was referred to as a polemecist, a controversialist, a promoter and similar terms throughout his career and after his passing. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've re-read this thread a few times, and I still can't see where anyone even argues against Rothbard being called a polemicist by reliable sources. Rich, Blink, you're wasting our time with noise. Stick to the topic or go edit something else. MilesMoney (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard is not primarily a career polemicist by anyone's analysis. The word is a violation of WP:NPOV and cannot stand as the one and only word we use to define him. Did Rothbard engage in polemics in his career? Certainly. Did Boettke call him a polemicist? Yes, after defining him as a libertarian economic theorist. Boettke does not define Rothbard primarily as a polemicist and nobody else does, either.

I've seen worthy arguments from MilesMoney and SPECIFICO, in other venues, but this is not one of them. If either of you want to choose an issue on which to take the attitude of "none shall pass", this is not it. Don't waste your time trying to make this word stick. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks are noise. Give me some signal. You just admitted he's a polemicist, so now you're out of excuse and insults. MilesMoney (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

So, the pattern I'm seeing here is Srich32977 and Binksternet making lots of bad changes while edit-warring and ignoring consensus. Since they won't accept consensus, I'm simply going to let them do whatever harm they want to the article, then revert all of their changes. Unfortunately, we'll lose the handful of neutral or even beneficial changes mixed in with the bad, but that's the price we pay. MilesMoney (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure User:MilesMoney will WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, follow WP editing policy IOT WP:PRESERVE appropriate content, and appreciate WP:CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC. – S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any meaning in your comment, so I'm going to just do what I said I would. MilesMoney (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why can't discussion with the community at large be had to reach consciousness before changes are made? The article looks significantly less bias currently. --BookishOwl (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

{{SPS}} tag removal

At least three of the citations in Ludwig von Mises Institute#Criticisms are from personal blogs (Callahan, Murphy, and Friedman). The Callahan & Murphy blogs are under discussion on the RSN. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com & WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy. This thread is not opened to discuss the issues involved in the RSNs. Rather, I point out that tagging the citations (or section) as {{SPS}} is proper because doing so serves to alert readers as to the on-going disputes and discussions. The discussions were first opened on this talk page and moved to the RSN. (Also, the tags serve to categorize the articles in as having disputed content.) I invite editors to justify removal of the tags as long as the discussions are underway. – S. Rich (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not policy. If we stick to policy, we don't put up scare tags so long as the sources are considered reliable. Given that they're already on the RSN noticeboard, such tags serve no purpose. Oh, and if you keep edit-warring to stop their removal, you will be reported. MilesMoney (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, your tags did not, your repeated insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, direct anybody anywhere. Given that dispute resolution was already long underway it's impossible to view your tags, 3 weeks into the process, as anything constructive. Moreover your previous responses to editor warnings and concerns about your recent tendentious behavior have been dismissive, unresponsive, and in several cases downright hostile. Please stop. We expect better of seasoned editors here. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the essays WP:TAGGING and WP:DT will be helpful. "Dispute templates are used to alert other editors that work is needed on a certain article, and auto-categorize pages so that patrolling editors can aid their talent to the problem." Tags by themselves are not designed to direct readers to a particular talk page or noticeboard. But if they are not there readers will not see that a dispute is on-going and the auto-categorization will not occur. SPECIFICO, you labeled the discussion as "stuck", so how is it that removing tags will unstuck the discussion? Perhaps by ignoring it? I can think of no other explanation. (But then I'm an editor who has less comprehension than a child.) If you think I am TE, post something on the ANI. (Or you might join in on the 3RR about my other edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you are not communicating clearly or accurately, and some editors have recently felt not forthrightly either. Under the circumstances, attempts at humor and sarcasm show you in a particularly poor light. Those, along with your angry and derisive outbursts, are only likely to escalate the mistrust of your editing here. I'm writing this as a personal note because you say you don't like templates. Please take a step back and disengage from these articles which have you so upset. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, the best place for your comments about my behavior and mental attitude is here: User talk:Srich32977#SPECIFICO.27s comment section. – S. Rich (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, he's talking about your bad behavior on this article, not your general bad behavior. The latter belongs on the appropriate drama page. MilesMoney (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich made it clear that he is tagging the article for wider input. Obstructionist disavowals will not help your case when previously uninvolved editors stop in here to take a look. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wider input? What are you even talking about? It's already on the RSN NB; how much wider does it get? MilesMoney (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are editors who keep an eye on the hidden categories that are generated with such templates, editors who do not participate in the noticeboards. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I not only don't believe it, I don't care. None of this is an excuse for filling an article with tags. If you dispute a source, go to the noticeboard. If the noticeboard doesn't support you, don't try to impeach these reliable sources with tags. MilesMoney (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Faculty" in infobox (BRD)

The article infobox had a line with the number of "adjunct scholars" (63) listed in the infobox as "adjunct faculty". This was removed in a Bold edit. The edit was Reverted, partially, by using the template parameter of "faculty" and put in the number 16, based on the listing found on the LvMI webpage. As LvMI has teaching programs (accredited or not) conducted by university professors, this is an appropriate entry. The institution infobox parameters have no restrictions or guidelines in this regard. This Discussion is opened for comment. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We await the independent secondary RS you will use to support the insertion of "faculty" in the article. Meanwhile, don't edit war. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is one of WP editing – whether or not "faculty" is an appropriate term/parameter for this infobox. RS is a secondary issue, if at all. LvMI is the source of the info and while primary, it is reliable enough to use in this context. (E.g, we have no reason to doubt whether courses are offered or whether the instructors are university professors.) As these people are university professors who are offering courses of varying complexity or worth, describing these people, who conduct these courses, as "faculty" is proper. Also, if one of the "notable" schools in the List of unaccredited institutions of higher education had a faculty headcount in their article based on their webpage, we would not reject the figure simply based on accreditation status. This NPOV editing evaluation is especially pertinent for those religious schools who eschew formal accreditation. (EW – moi? Indeed not! That is why I am the one who opened this BRD.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's not accredited then it doesn't matter if "real" professors are teaching. Accreditation is given to schools, not teachers. The school is responsible for ensuring that the teachers follow the requirements, not the other way around. In short, your argument just doesn't make any sense. Even if your conclusion is correct (and I'm not sure that it is), it's correct only by coincidence. MilesMoney (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

But there is no criteria by which we can judge whether LvMI is providing "real" educational services or not. Indeed, adding education-related categories to the article may be appropriate – but I am not advocating anything in that regard. Rather, the question is about using the term "faculty" in the infobox. The template provides for the line, but without parameters. E.g., there is no requirement at only accredited institutions get to use the "faculty" parameter. So, again, compare – if there are religious teaching institutions that have "faculty" without having been accredited, we would be infringing on NPOV to say "You are an unaccredited religious teaching institution, therefore you cannot use the term "faculty" to describe your teaching staff!" Similarly, the Bisexual Resource Center is described as a "educational" organization. What if they offered classes on various LGBT related topics? Would we declare that they could not list a number for their "faculty" count (if the article had an infobox)? I realize that I am building hypothetical upon hypothetical (i.e., no infobox for an educational institution that may or may not offer classes). But what if they did? The point is that LvMI does offer classes, and those classes are taught by real professors, and LvMI does list them as faculty. That said, the only argument that LvMI does not have "faculty" is one based on POV. – S. Rich (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are criteria, you just don't like them. Accreditation is how we distinguish genuine institutions of higher learning from the sort of place where you learn to praise Jesus or do an oil change. These places are a kind of school, but not the kind we can treat like a real school. MilesMoney (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You might not want to tell that to the guy changing your oil next time. You might find yourself stranded on the side of the road. Arzel (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I change my own oil. Speaking of which, if I charged you $20 to teach you how to change your oil, can I call myself "faculty"? If not, then why do LvMI's unaccredited instructors get to? MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Degree granting institutions get (or don't get, or don't seek) accreditation. Individual instructors, such as university professors, in institutions are not accredited. In any event, there is no WP or other criteria by which we can exclude the usage of the term "faculty". Moreover, LvMI is not setting itself up as a degree granting institution. – S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)04:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Home Depot gives free classes on home repair. Does that make it a school? Is the old carpenter who gives these classes a member of their faculty? Now look at the LvMI and tell me it's any more a school than Home Depot is. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You need a more pertinent and convincing analogy. HD does not describe its program as a university (like McD's "Hamburger University") or have PhDs providing the instruction. – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so McD's is a good analogy to LvMI? Want fries with that? It doesn't matter whether the "faculty" has degrees. They're operating outside of accreditation, which means they can violate all academic norms or simply fail to teach anything. There are plenty of unaccredited "certification mills" that will take your money and give you very little education in return. They're scams made by the greedy to prey on the desperate. At least McD's teaches you how to flip a burger, which is a legitimate skill. MilesMoney (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you are advocating a clear violation of WP policy. We do not use primary sources or self-description for anything other than obvious facts which would be apparent to any observer. The Mises.org website contains a variety of material, ranging from archives of documents published by third parties to self-serving promotional statements about the Mises Institute and its affiliates. We need to find an independent WP:RS which states that certain Mises Institute employees function as "faculty" of the Mises Institute. The RS must be qualified as to the assertion for which you propose to cite it. Without such a source, WP can not call them faculty. You have a simple remedy. Find a RS reference for the text you believe accurately represents independent description. Meanwhile, the primary-sourced text cannot be used. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no violation of policy. Primary sources can be used. We would not question the source for the number of employees or key people, and there is no reason to question the number of people who teach there. The issue in this thread concerns whether or not we should use the word "faculty" in the infobox. I argue that they have classes conducted by PhDs. Also, they have on-line learning (but I have not gotten into that.) I argue that other teaching institutions do not have accreditation (for whatever reason) and it would be proper to include a faculty count in the infobox. The institution infobox has an undefined parameter for faculty, so perhaps that needs to change. As for secondary sources, if we find something that describes LvMI as an educational institution, then the description will be met. Along the same lines, if we find material about think tanks (which term has been used to describe LvMI) as educational institutions, then the criteria will be met. – S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't use primary sources for such controversial stuff. Let's just go with "employees" or something. Nobody can argue with that. MilesMoney (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to reach a solution. There is a staff parameter in the infobox. I don't know that "employees" is descriptive enough, as the classes are short term affairs. How about "teaching staff"? – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I can live with "staff". Accurate and uncontroversial. MilesMoney (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Alas, we have 21 in the staff parameter. And staff implies full time. Combining the full time and part time teachers would be inaccurate. – S. Rich (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, it's not constructive to repeat yourself without responding the the concerns stated by other editors. Calling them teachers or in any other way characterizing their activities or those of the vMI is WP:OR. Man up and find WP:RS. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You asked for secondary, and you got it. But your edit summary by which you removed [14] the link from Texas Tech University is vague. That is, TTU mentions various summer programs available to a particular group of students. It is not an extensive in any sense. So, why is "directory" posted as a justification? WP does not restrict WP:SECONDARY sources in this regard. Context matters, and the TTU has provided pertinent, reliable information. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

More BRD

You had objection about secondary material and you got it. The FEE is secondary & simply notes that they have courses in AE. The prize section was pared down to avoid selectivity in naming winners, and only the 2 major prizes are named. WP:PRESERVE says "preserve appropriate content". So why wouldn't these activities at LvMI not be appropriate content? – S. Rich (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I note that info on the awards was added here: [15]. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The FEE reference says nothing to support the text for which you used it as reference. Googling and twinkling without reading the "sources" before putting them up leads to a huge garble of unsupported text and a huge waste of WP resources to undo the damage. Please find secondary RS references and be sure that they WP:V the text you insert in the article. The fact that vMI is near the Auburn University campus is hardly a propos. Undo your edit-war reinsertion of the content which fails verification. Use talk and do not reinsert erroneous edits. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So, in accordance with WP:PRESERVE I modified the text. While FEE says LvMI is near Auburn U, I did not use this info. FEE talks about the fact that LvMI offers classes about Austrian econ, and that's all that I put in. Damage? Huh! – S. Rich (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To be in accordance with WP:PRESERVE, the info would have to be verifiable. As SPECIFCO pointed out, it's not. You know this means you have to remove it, right? Or do you want one of us to do it for you? I'm more than willing, if it spares you the pain of cutting text you love more than WP:RS itself. MilesMoney (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Admitting I was wrong about FEE saying LvMI offered classes at LvMI, I have stricken portions of my remarks and the FEE reference. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a great start. Now you can fix the article, too. MilesMoney (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Steps taken in improving the article: Srich – 139 edits; Specifico – 138 edits. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, a great start, but we're not done yet. MilesMoney (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now we're done. I fixed that for you. MilesMoney (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note re WP:RPP in regard to including "Followers of Rothbard as a cult"

I have requested WP:RPP while this question -- whether inclusion of the description of Rothbard's followers are a cult -- is discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just protected for three days to encourage discussion on this talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion of the issue was started earlier (above) at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#The institute as a cult. Please do not add comments to this section. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Request that this change be reverted: [16]. It adds non-RS material discussed over a 3 week period at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_156#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. Note: the edit was made 7 minutes after I had posted the notice about RPP (on another issue) immediately above. The particular material was removed shortly after the RSN was closed on 23 September. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, believe it or not I do not patrol WP every 6 minutes to see whether I can game your PP requests. The close of the RSN re:Callahan was specifically about removing the "cult" bit and in fact I was the one who removed the cult bit as soon as I saw the close. This Callahan text was not what was cited in the close. At any rate the whole point of PP which you requested is to have discussion here. The more matters we can discuss and resolve, the better we've made use of the PP which you have requested. Trying to recruit an Admin to your edit war during PP is rather unseemly, IMO. Please do consider joining talk on the issues which concern you. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a big deal. Still, edit requests pertain to material which have consensus. In this case the consensus on the RSN is against including the Callahan blog. With this in mind, the WP:BURDEN is on you to establish that the Callahan material should be included. As it was removed after the RSN closed, a Discussion should have been opened to argue for its' inclusion. The timing of the addition is curious. While you may not patrol WP for RPPs, I do think this page is on your watchlist. If that is the case, then you would have seen my RPP before adding the material. There is no EW involved WRT the Callahan blog. The earlier EW involves the description of Rothbard's followers. And I posted the RPP when the "cult followers" material was in the text (as it is now). And I reopened the discussion on the talk page above. Having opened the talk, I invite you to join. – S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you continue to add to your bulging archive of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT posts. I just finished reminding you that the close of the RSN on Callahan referred explicitly and solely to calling vMI a "cult". with neither expert nor corroborating third party support. Capiche? You needn't make repeated denials, stating that you're not edit-warring. Others can decide for themselves based on what they see. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, that's not factually correct. The RSN discussion was about whether we could use him for the cult reference, not anything else. MilesMoney (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern regarding sockpuppets

This page is being attacked by a sockpuppet vandal who's using two IP's and one account to censor the cited mention of criticism. The next step, I expect, would be for someone to report me for WP:3RR. That person would most likely be the sockmaster, so I'm going to make sure to include them and their allies in the SPI request. MilesMoney (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck it, I reported them all. MilesMoney (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss content instead of edit-warring

The latest chapter in what seems to be a long-running edit war over this page is contention over a sentence in the lead section that says something like Critics have called it "right wing" and compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult. This statement may be true, but I find that the sources that have been cited in the article and the lead don't fully support the statement.

It's desirable for the lead to summarize the views of critics, but it's not fatal if the article exists for another week or so without that content in the lead.

Please work on finding sources -- and write the article to describe what the sources say, not what you think they should say. Please discuss your proposed content here before adding it the article. --Orlady (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than debate what this source says, I'll quote from his book, "The New Hate":

No, not everyone on the right or even the far right is an anti-Semite, a neo-Know-Nothing, or a racist, but haters aren’t particularly rare or exotic either. The paleo-libertarian Lew Rockwell, an economic adviser to Ron Paul and the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, divides his efforts between energetic advocacy of laissez-faire Austrian school economic ideas and neo-secessionist Civil War revisionism. Rockwell has been blamed for writing some of the un-bylined racist, homophobic, and conspiracist rants that cropped up in Ron Paul’s newsletters in decades past, though this choice passage was apparently written by Paul himself:

This very clearly identifies Rockwell and his Institute as far right. On this basis, the page must be unlocked so that we can fix it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, the Selgin quote elsewhere on the page talks all about culthood. MilesMoney (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently when you refer to "this source", you are referring to Arthur Goldwag. (You didn't mention his name, and the book The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right that you quote from isn't cited in this article.) Your book quote is about Lew Rockwell, not about the Institute. The only thing he says about the Institute is that Rockwell is its director. Presenting a statement about Rockwell as being a statement about the Institute would be a misrepresentation. Furthermore, the paragraph you quote here doesn't explicitly describe Rockwell as "right-wing", and it most definitely doesn't indicate that "critics" have called the Institute "right wing" or compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult. Additionally, the only thing that the article by Goldwag that was cited in the article lede says about the Institute is "there is a long-standing strain of American anarchism that ... evolved into the form of libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism that is associated with Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute." That doesn't support the statement that was made in the article lede.

I can't access all of the sources cited in the body of the article, but I can comment on some of them. Two sources are cited for the statement that the Institute has been called "right-wing". I could only see Google snippets from one of the the books; the snippets indicate that the book mentions the Institute on only one page, leading me to wonder whether it said much of anything about the Institute. Later in the article, I read that "The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the Mises Institute as a hard right organization," so I looked at the source cited. The webpage cited states "Around the country, ideas that originated on the hard right or in the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists are finding their way into the mainstream," but it doesn't classify any organization as "hard right." Another page on the website describes the von Mises Institute, but it doesn't ever call it "hard right" (in fact, the description of the Institute doesn't use the word "hard" and the word "right" appears only in the context of "property rights" and "voting rights"). (There are, however, plenty of other descriptive words in the SPLC characterization of the Institute.)

It's way past my bedtime, so I won't continue this tonight. Suffice it to say that (tedious as this may seem) Wikipedia content needs to be based on what cited sources actually say, not on what we read into them, what we think they should say, or what we synthesize from a variety of different sources. Note also that, in Wikipedia, a "source" refers a published work, not a person. --Orlady (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Meat puppet edits?

It turns out that all of these independent, new editors are just meat puppets dragged here by a Reddit thread. It's time to unlock the page and block all of the puppets. MilesMoney (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why must everyone with opposing views be puppets? How about we all work together to make this article as bias-free and accurate as possible? How about instead of banning individuals we bring them into the Wikipedia community?

I have a few hours free this weekend. Do you have any suggestions on a section to work on? I'll Post the changes/updates here (for debate) before incorporating them into the article. --BookishOwl (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEAT. MilesMoney (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(edited for formatting) Indeed. Also worth note is the following statement: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care." I would remind you of WP:NPA. You may also be violating WP:TPG with this post. Saying that you plan to make revisions for the sake of making revisions seems counteractive to the advice in the link you've made.

What changes do you currently have problems with?

Perhaps the community at large can discuss your issues to reach a conclusion. --BookishOwl (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BookishOwl (talk • contribs) 04:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: we have sources showing that critics accuse the Institute of being cult-like and consider it to be far-right. Despite these sources, the sentence summarizing this was removed from the lead. Based on the Reddit thread, the reason is that these visitors really, really like the Institute and really, really don't like unflattering but true things about it in the article. In other words, they came to violate WP:NPOV. MilesMoney (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why? See: [17] – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)05:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion thread's header should not change after people have been responding. I have changed it back. Binksternet (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not supposed to change at all unless there's a really good reason. You've offered none. MilesMoney (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

For all we know, MilesMoney, you could have posted that reddit thread yourself. You can't say this "confirms" meat puppetry. 74.108.18.128 (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't try to BS me. MilesMoney (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments regarding article content

I don't think it would be hard to find multiple AND valid sources referring to the organization as leaning right. You could probably find sources from the organization itself that say exactly that. To say the LvMI is "right-wing" shouldn't be any more controversial than saying the Republicans are "Right wing". I think the problem here is the use of the word CULT, especially in the opening paragraph. As it stands, it comes from one individual (not a consensus among economists) and seems more fitting for the 'Criticisms' section. What is everyone's opinion on this?--BookishOwl (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We already have multiple sources confirming both aspects of the sentence about criticism. A summary of criticism doesn't have to represent a consensus among critics, it just has to be a fair representation of the sort of criticism that's out there. MilesMoney (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the rest of the article, including criticism, per WP:LEAD. — goethean 14:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the article should follow our sources. This is a solid, reliable source for describing the Institute as right-wing and neo-Confederate. MilesMoney (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That source (like many of the sources in this article) is a journalist's opinion (specifically, the opinion of James Kirchick in a piece in The New Republic in 2008 -- a piece that is currently ineptly quoted in the article and cited as footnote 29). It is an opinion, not an objective fact. Moreover, note that the writer does not say that anyone else (neither a named person nor a collective noun like "critics") has said the same things about the LvM Institute. Furthermore, it doesn't say the Institute is "right-wing" (not that "right wing" is a term that conveys the kind of definitive meaning an encyclopedia should strive for). Rather, it says the people associated with the Institute "represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history, the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states." Later in the passage, the writer characterizes these people as "neo-Confederates". That's an interesting bit of raw material for tha article, but opinionated comments like that one need to be represented as opinion, attributed, presented in proper context, and not given undue weight. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're just digging a deeper ditch for yourself. The sentence you deleted is directly supported by these references, and your stated reason was that it lacked citations. You were wrong. You remain wrong. The sentence belongs in the article. MilesMoney (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Orlady. The statement in the lede doesn't state that vMI is right wing or a cult as a fact or as WP's view or conclusion. It merely summarizes without comment the criticisms which are presented later in the body of the article. Those criticisms are presented as opinions and as such they are attributed to cited sources in the "criticisms" section. I wonder whether the criterion you apply is the correct one for the short lede sentence under discussion. The opening paragraph of the lede, which I wrote, properly gives vMI's own description of its mission. It seems to me that the less prominent short reference to some of the concerns of vMI critics -- criticisms which are clearly not stated in WP's voice -- is a rather innocuous balancing statement. I think that some of the initial concern about this sentence arose because some readers did not realize that it was summarizing cited referenced material from the article body below. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In its current form, the lead section consists of content that is (for the most part) not found later in the article body; as such, the lead section is heavily footnoted. In that context, the lead section can't contain one unfootnoted sentence that summarizes potentially controversial content from elsewhere in the article.

In order for the lead section to be a true summary, as described in WP:Lead section, the body of he article will need to be revised to include an objective discussion of the institute's history (the section "Background and location" that currently begins the article body is almost as much commentary as it is objective information) and to include other details (such as mission statement and tax-exempt status) that are now found only in the lead section and infobox.

A further concern here is the quality of the content in the sentence. The label "right wing" is almost meaningless (it means very different things in different contexts). Anyway, as a general rule an encyclopedia should describe, rather than label. (That's a general issue with this article. In places, the article seems to be more focused on labeling the Institute (e.g., as "right-wing", "paleo libertarian", "neo-Confederate", and "racist") than with describing its actions, positions, and societal influence -- or with describing the specifics of the criticism of the Institute.) Also, it's not clear to me that the article as currently written supports the statement that the "right wing" label is applied by "critics," broadly defined. That section states that "some writers" have used that characterization, listing two book citations (which I discussed earlier on this page) -- that doesn't necessarily translate to the broad "critics." Some other content in the "Criticisms" section that I've been able to access turns out either to (1) not to be explicitly about the Institute (an example of this is the David Boaz quotation at the beginning of "Criticisms", which is from a piece that nowhere names the Institute, Lew Rockwell, or Murray Rothbard) or (2) not say what the article claims it says (an example is the SPLC content that I discussed in the comments I posted here late last night).

IMO, the article needs to be reorganized to separate "the facts" from the statements of opinion. All of the content needs to be carefully checked to make sure it truly represents what sources say, and not a contributor's synthesis or POV. --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit protected

Request removal of the following paragraph found in Ludwig von Mises Institute#Criticisms:

Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters.[41][42][43][44]

This specific paragraph was the subject of a RSN discussion (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy) and determined to be non-RS. (This determination was made while the article was under PP. The consensus RSN was not implemented after the PP was removed and before the current PP was implemented.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done

• Question: There was an earlier RSN discussion about a Callahan blog item. Was the outcome of that discussion fully implemented? I ask because the article still cites a Callahan blog item, but it's apparently not the content discussed at RSN. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

After the Callahan blog RSN was completed, there was a partial removal – material related to the "cult" claim [18]. The entire Callahan blog material was then removed by me [19]. The material now in article was inserted later (sans talk page discussion) [20]. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That inserted item is peculiar; it appears to be presented out of context and it's an excessively long direct quotation. I won't touch it for now, though. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I will add that when the prior PP was implemented, I did an edit request on the specific Callahan blog material. My request was not implemented. Even so, we have other personal blogs posted in the article. David Friedman is in footnote 45 and George Selgin is in footnote 44. bleedingheartlibertarians.com blog comments are posted at footnotes 15 & 16. – S. Rich (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich was wrong; the RSN was only on whether that source could be used for the cult claim. He just got you to cause further damage to this article. But don't worry, it'll all come back. MilesMoney (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I read the RSN discussion and the cited sources before deleting that "hyenas" comment. (I did not mindlessly accept SRich's assertions.) IMHO, regardless of how it was sourced, that "hyenas" content did not add encyclopedic value. Meanwhile, I am getting the distinct impression that some of the users involved with this page have more interest in fanning the flames of a Wikipedia dispute than in improving the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you talking about yourself or are you violating WP:NPA? Either way, Rich claimed the RSN ruled out that section, which turns out not to be true. On that basis, you should have rejected his request. You should have also rejected it the moment it became clear that there was no consensus for it. As it stands, you have once again overstepped your privileges, just like when you first changed the article right before protecting it. You need to remove the protection and back away from this article that you're in the process of ruining. MilesMoney (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to Orlady for removing the hyenas comment which was a clear violation of the neutral tone we are supposed to be establishing per WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and then explain precisely what aspect is violates. Quotes or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DENY --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

See the reason I jokingly added "Quotes or it didn't happen" is that just about anybody can link to one of those WP:ACRONYMS but it doesn't mean they apply. There's nothing about WP:DENY that has anything to do with this situation. MilesMoney (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'd like to remind you that there was no consensus supporting either of the versions you've created. You are acting outside of your authority. MilesMoney (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DENY is good advice that I intend to continue to follow. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not relate to anything here, and you did not acknowledge the lack of consensus for your changes. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School Box

The Austrian School box includes individuals who are not associated with vMI. Per BLP, these individuals cannot be listed on the Mises Inst. page. Only Mises Institute and its affiliated writers claim that Mises Institute is a center of Austrian School economics. Independent sources do not call vMI the center of Austrian Economics. WP cannot support self-promotion from the vMI as if it were fact. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to judge who counts as "official" or even "mainstream" Austrian, but it's pretty clear that there was little overlap between this article and that template, so I'm fine with removing it. I'm not at all fine with Binksternet insulting SPECIFICO (and now me) by calling this idiotic, much less with restoring it without adequately explaining himself. MilesMoney (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, if you think that the template listing all the Austrian School elements is a BLP problem, you are free to raise the question at WP:BLPN. I think you will find nobody there agrees with you. I certainly don't. I think it is petty politics you are playing—that you hate LvMI with a passion and that you do not want to be associated with them. Unfortunately, your Austrian School is widely considered to be inclusive of the Rothbard clan, the LvMI element.

Rather than arguing about who is more Austrian, you should start your own School to complete the intra-Austrian schism. Get your new School recognized and described in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea that including a WP:SIDEBAR, which includes the very article, violates BLP is extraordinary. (I have restored it.) The inclusion of Mises.org in the template might be one for discussion on the template page, but no possible BLP violation can occur when the organization is in the template. – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think both of you have missed the point: LmVI being Austrian does not mean that these mainline Austrians are LmVI. LmVI is a subset of the superset. MilesMoney (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the sky is blue, but none of that bears on the matter at hand. The template is about various elements of the Austrian School, and the template should be included here in this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to point out that "captain obvious" is sarcastic to the point of being a borderline personal attack. As for your comment, you're just stating a conclusion without really explaining why we should agree. MilesMoney (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a template composition issue. Navigation templates (such as sidebars) simply serve to direct readers to related articles. Inclusion of Mises.org in the template is not an article issue. Bring it up on the template talk page if you wish. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@srich" S.Rich, I think you have this backwards, you wrote: "Inclusion of Mises.org in the template is not an article issue." That's not the problem. The problem is inclusion of the template in Mises. -- the opposite. Thank you for clarifying your view on talk, and please undo your reinsertion of this template. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If the problem is the inclusion of Mises.org in the template, then propose a change in the template. – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, there should be no change to the sidebar template. We should not entertain the suppression of one faction by activists from the other faction. Rather, we should trust that our reliable sources have clearly stated the connection. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Boys, boys. This isn't dungeons and dragons. We're trying to edit an encyclopedia here. Srich has twice stated the problem backwards, which I realize might be further confusing Mr. Bink but the problem is very simple. A reader will look at the "Austrian School" template and see the names of living people who are not affiliated with vMI and may object to the suggestion or the implication, intentional or otherwise, that they are affiliated with vMI. Therefore, per BLP and per common sense clear presentation of the material the template should not appear on this page. You wouldn't put the template which lists Indy 500 winners on the Greenpeace page, would you Srich? SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this issue, but I do have a strong opinion about those who seem not to understand the issue sharing their uninformed but strong opinions. When someone literally doesn't know what they're talking about, we have no motivation to listen. MilesMoney (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm working with Sirch on his talk page. Perhaps there's too much crosstalk here. We'll see. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you cast this dispute as one in which apples and oranges are both put into the same template, and your wish is to separate the two to the satisfaction of all parties. This is incorrect; all the reliable sources say that the LvMI is part of the Austrian School. At the most different they would be crab apples versus Granny Smiths—nothing so different as oranges. One group does not like the other but the template is formed by the widely reported connections. It does not highlight the schism. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Binker. I have said before that, despite your various misdemeanors I do believe that you sincerely believe much of the self-promotion and posturing about the Mises Institute, Rothbard and others. However in fact: It is *not* the case that "all the reliable sourcs say that LvMI is part of the Austrian School" Your premise and sincerely held belief is incorrect. Also, let's not talk about "group" likes and dislikes, it is amorphous and WP:OR. Anyway, you can't risk libeling those who don't wish to be implied mixed up with Mises. It's a BLP violation every time you reinserted it instead of talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP does not apply here. The sidebar template talks about organizations that are widely known as having an affiliation to the Austrian School. It does not attempt to castigate individuals, or ruin their reputations. If you really think BLP is the stick with which to beat this beast, let me know what part of it you are referring to. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Associating them with the LmVI may well qualify as an attack on their reputation. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying so is easy. Proving it will be much more difficult. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be hard for you, since you have the burden when it comes to BLP. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Friedman personal blog material

In this edit [21] I removed personal blog comments from David Friedman with the following edit summary: "Remove David Friedman blog comment -- it is SPS & discusses third parties; other than saying Rockwell founded LvMI, it does not discuss LvMI as an organization". This material was restored here: [22] with an edit summary of "Undo removal of valid sourced comment. Stated reasons for deletion are invalid. Use talk if you disagree." Well, my edit summary stands. While the Friedman personal blog may be RS in other situations -- such as his views on topics in which he is an expert -- this personal blog comment does not discuss such topics. His personal blog talks about his father and other persons. It does not talk about Mises.org other than by making the passing remark that Rockwell founded LvMI. Accordingly, it fails as proper RS in two senses: it is SPS which talks about third parties and it does not directly support anything about the topic of the article, the Mises Institute. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I note the following: 1. No response was made to this BRD thread. 2. This particular Friedman blog material, which I tagged as SPS, has recently been removed. – S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Callahan personal blog material (BRD)

In this edit [23] I removed a personal blog from Callahan in which he speculates about the history of the LvMI. Admittedly he does not know what had happened, but that does not matter. His personal blog is WP:SPS and concerns third parties. Moreover, it is not discussing a subject in which he is an expert – economics. (Note: this material was removed with the edit summary of "Remove Callahan personal blog material: SPS & not an opinion on subject he is an expert in; merely speculative "I think ...."".) The material I removed was restored here [24] with the edit summary "Revert removal of relevant RS text". Well, while Callahan may be a notable economist, the material he has supplied – the speculative personal surmises in his personal blog – are not acceptable as RS. I'll say it again, his thoughts are clearly SPS, involve third parties, and do not involve a subject in which he is an expert. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:ABOUTSELF. A member of the Institute is a reliable source about the Institute. MilesMoney (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If Callahan was simply talking about himself that would be one thing. But Callahan's personal blog goes on to topics other than himself. I don't argue with what he has said about LvMI and its history before he was there. SPS simply does not allow us to add such material, true or not because it is a personal blog and he talks about third persons. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That does not appear to be what policy says. Rather, as a member of the Institute, he is free to discuss it all he likes. MilesMoney (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We went through this blog issue before with Callahan and Murphy. His membership in the institute does not allow us, as Wikipedia editors, to use his personal blog to talk about third parties or to repeat his speculations about what had occurred at the institute before he became associated with them. It does not matter that his thoughts are relevant to the institute, the editing issue is the proper usage of what he wrote. WP:SPS says we cannot use his blog. – S. Rich (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're overgeneralizing. The conclusion was that we couldn't use a particular source to say a particular thing. It wasn't that these sources are invalid. MilesMoney (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that the particular paragraph has been revised recently. It now reads:

In a discussion about alleged racism in the Institute, former Institute Scholar Gene Callahan noted that the Institute had sought to appeal to racists for years, but also said that "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time ... I got there" in in the early 2000s.[40]

The problems with this citation remain. It is a personal blog; Callahan is speculating about events prior to his arrival (thus it involves "claims about events not directly related to the source"); it is on a subject in which he is not an expert; it involves a third party – the institution. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what speculation is. As a member, he was familiar with its history of racism, and now he defends it by saying the racism was mostly a thing of the past. His view as a member is not comparable to some random blog by a person who has had no personal association with the Institute. It is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, not WP:SPS. MilesMoney (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, how many questionable WP:RS do we have saying something about racism? I found Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_156#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com that said Callahan couldn't call it cult. Do we have to add that he can't call it racist to the two others to bring to WP:RSN? And then there's all the neutral and even positive WP:RS info that can be added so this article doesn't become a WP:COATRACK for attacking a whole anti-state political view that some editors don't agree with. Lot of cutting out and adding in to do to make this article NPOV. User:Carolmooredc 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Off topic section on the "Mises.org scholars"

This section strays from the topic of Mises.org as an institution. Of course many LvMI "scholars" have opined on a variety of subjects, but where is the RS that says their opinions are the opinions of the institute? It is pure SYN to say "X wrote about Y subject, therefore Z institute has such-and-such opinion about Y." IOW, just because Mises.org published their stuff does not mean the institute subscribes to the stuff. We need RS to backup such an assertion. So, the material about Rockwell, Rothbard, etc., as individuals, and not pertaining directly to their role in LvMI, should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're making major changes to the article -- mostly by removing well-cited material -- without prior discussion. Simply announcing your conclusions here without waiting for anyone to respond is not a substitute for genuine consensus-building. As a result, the version you are creating is going to wind up as a historical footnote, not part of the future of the article. MilesMoney (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, MilesMoney, BRD does not suggest a need for prior discussion. I've removed off-topic material and tagged the section as off-topic and started the discussion. Please reply. – S. Rich (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

BRD says that when you make a bold change like this, the expected reaction is a revert. In response to this revert, you must discuss, not edit-war by counter-reverting. It will be interesting to see if you can follow this or will need to be blocked for edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

BRD, a valuable essay, does not tell us where the Bold starts off. In this case, there were some prior Bold edits and I have now Reverted them. In any event, I started the Discuss phase, so please justify whatever additions or changes you think should be made. Garner community consensus. Please meet the requirements of WP:PROVEIT so that the material might be restored. – S. Rich (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all. The best I can make out of it is that you intend to edit-war. That would be unfortunate, particularly for you. MilesMoney (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I opened this thread so that the off-topic material could be discussed. Please reply and address whether or not the material provides direct support as required by WP:RS. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic of this thread – the off topic material – I invite editors to comment on what they see in the tagged section. Does it pertain to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or is it material about what people associated with LvMI (closely or loosely) have written about? I contend that the variety of opinions, about a variety of subjects, is off topic. – S. Rich (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that material about the members of the Institute is irrelevant to an article about the Institute? MilesMoney (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The WP:TOPIC of the article is Mises.org, not the various views of 70–200 "scholars" associated with the institute. Notable scholars with their own articles can have their views described in their articles. Unless there is RS which makes a connection about the views of particular scholars to the institute, such views are off-topic. And the RS must directly support any connection between any such views and the institute. – S. Rich (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard and Rockwell are the founders, so their beliefs are directly relevant to what they created and ran. As for the various scholars, you're not actually making an argument for excluding them. Rather, you're arguing against a position that nobody is for, which is that the entire organization should be characterized as sharing the beliefs of an arbitrary member. There's no slippery slope between describing notable views and generalizing past our sources.

For these reasons, your attempted changes are harmful to the article. Of course, it doesn't help any that you edit-warred and violated BRD, even after being warned in advance. MilesMoney (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit [25] demonstrates how off-topic/OR/SYN is being injected. An article from 1976, reprinted in the 2000s by Mises.org, which gives the views of one of the founders, is presented as "supporting" the idea that revisionism is a focus of the institution. Where is the RS that supports this idea? Are there any secondary sources that support this idea? If there are, then such sources should be used. But this selection of an old, reprinted article from one of the people involved with Mises.org is WP:CHERRYPICKING. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to pick a single cherry when there's a bushel of them. MilesMoney (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

When there are cherries to be picked as to Gary North, pick them and put them in the Gary North article. But doing so in this article, using these cherries to describe the views of North as the "focus" of LvMI is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC) The particular edit by MilesMoney is [26]. 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

When all you have is one cherry, you can never know if it's typical. Here, we have North speaking at the Institute's 30th anniversary conference, we have two Rothbard essays, we have a revisionism book they endorse, and so on. You'd have to shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and hum to ignore all this. MilesMoney (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

They sell 420 different books by dozens of different authors. When you select two authors and combine information from other sources about those authors, and thereby say "revisionism" (or anything else) is the focus of the institution, you are cherrypicking. – S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not cherrypicking to select the founder's essays, either. MilesMoney (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute § Off-topic section: .22Views espoused by founders .26 organization scholars.22

Goldberg's opinions (BRD)

Where does Goldberg say anything about Mises.org? He simply does not say anything about the organization. (And, as a reminder, this article is about the organization, not about libertarians or their history, etc.) Without providing direct support, his mentions of the paleolibertarians is off-topic from the history or background of the institute. There is no WP justification that allows for articles to say "These guys did this, therefore LvMI is that." – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming that discussion of the Institute's founder is irrelevant to the institute. That doesn't make sense at all, so I'm hoping you have some other explanation. MilesMoney (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, if Goldberg was saying anything about the institute, that would be relevant. But when he talks about non-institute stuff, he is off topic. Using Goldberg to describe the institute in any fashion, when he does not talk about the institute, is OR. – S. Rich (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, anything about the founders; ideology is relevant to this article. MilesMoney (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding "anything about" is not how WP operates. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is a lot of RS that is related to the founders, but that material is simply related to them, not the institute. Compare, Ferrera has stuff to say about his book and the criticism which his book received. He went on to make remarks about Mises.org. That material has some relevance. – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

And if you were making a few small changes and waiting for feedback, perhaps we could consider such subtleties. As it stands, there's little to do but revert the damage you're causing. MilesMoney (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The various small changes were all explained by edit summaries. Reverting all of them, removing those changes which are helpful, does not comply with WP:PRESERVE. – S. Rich (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE doesn't say what you think it does. In fact, it's the reason I reverted all of the deletion. Please re-read this policy and try to fully understand it before referencing it again. MilesMoney (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, Goldberg does not say anything about Mises.org. Inclusion of the paragraph, which involves the off-topic history of the paleolibertarians, is SYN. As it violates WP:NOTFORUM policy (e.g., giving Goldberg a soapbox), I am removing it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rockwell denial of "right wing"

This portion of the text "a label which Lew Rockwell and others affiliated with the Institute deny." has been removed. The citation for this was broken. The correct url for the article is Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. (August 28, 2006). "What is Left? What is Right?". The American Conservative. In reading the Rockwell piece, he does not say anything about Mises.org. – S. Rich (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Focus of insittution

In reaction to MM's edit. A couple of articles on history revisionism doesn't make it a focus. Iselilja (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The particular edit is [27]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic section: "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars"

Moved from Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute § Off topic section on the "Mises.org scholars"

What is the WP:TOPIC of this article? Is it the Ludwig von Mises Institute or is it the Ludwig von Mises Institute and opinions of various persons associated with the institute? WP policy WP:CRITERIA requires us to set up articles with titles that are precise and concise. E.g., article titles must "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." And once we set up and article, we much make sure we stay within the scope of the article. We write in summary style, and that requires us to focus on the article and its' topic.

With these guidelines and policy in mind, this commentary is about the section titled "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars".

As it stands now, the section has 3 subsections, referenced by footnotes 23–37 (15 citations). Here they are:

• 23 – Mises.org – by Chistopher Mayer, an MBA student, discussing what other writers, including Mises & HL Menken thought (provided to support idea that Mises scholars think democracy is "coercive" and "a system of legalized graft".)
• 24 – Mises.org – by Joseph Potts, who studies econ at home, discussing the book World on Fire by Amy Chua (provided to support idea that Mises scholars think democracy is "incompatible with wealth creation")
• 25 – Mises.org – a cite to Mises' book Man, Economy & State Chapter 5 (provided to support the idea that Mises scholars think democracy is "replete with inner contradictions")
• 26 – Mises.org – a cite to Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer 1998 "Immigration Symposium" (provided to show "Mises scholars" hold diverse views on immigration)
  • 27 & 28 – two of the eight Immigration Symposium selections by Walter Block and Hans-Hermann Hoppe
• 29 – SPLC – a cite to SPLC's article "The Idealogues" regarding Donald Livingston & Thomas DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo is described as a senior scholar & Livingston as an adjunct scholar.
• 30 – has two links. One has a "page not found" error at the New Republic page. The other link has the New Republic material and also described DiLorenzo as a senior scholar.
• 31 – links to an archived LewRockwell.com blog posting by Thomas Woods where he discusses his past involvement in the League of the South. Mises.org is not mentioned.
• 32 – Reason.com page about Thomas Wood. Mises.org is not mentioned
• 33 – SPLC Intelligence Report – 10 sentences in 7 paragraphs. Discusses Mises.org, Rockwell, Livingston, Fleming. Says Rockwell & Jeff Tucker were listed as founding members of the League of the South and states their denial of the allegation.
• 34 – Mises.org – The link appears to summarize Speaking of Liberty a 2003 book edited by [by] Rockwell with 33 speeches. Page for the quote cited is not given. From the footnote it is not clear that Rockwell was responding to the 2000 SPLC Intelligence report mentioned in footnote 33. [Added comment: text rendered small because page number & fuller quote are now in the text.]
• 35 – Mises.org – Kinsella's views and criticisms of intellectual property law, comparing it with "genuine property rights"
• 36 – Mises.org – David Gordon's review of Christopher Horner's 2008 book Red Hot Lies (presented as an article published by Mises.org which expresses doubt about the "scientific consensus on climate change"
• 37 – Mises.org – David Evan's skeptical article about climate change consensus. (Evans is not listed in the Mises.org faculty.)

The totals:

• 10 Mises.org cites – 3 to articles by non-Mises "affiliated" persons; 1 to Mises' book (I don't know, but isn't he dead?); 3 citations to the Journal symposium article, which had 8 articles; and 3 to Rockwell, Block & Gordon. (The Speaking of Liberty citation is incomplete, so judgment is reserved on that one.)
• 5 non-Mises.org cites – 2 from SPLC which reference Mises.org; 1 from LRC, which does not mention Mises.org; 1 from Reason.com, which does not mention Mises.org; and 1 (TNR) which describes Wood & Livingston as being Mises scholars.

Note – some of the comments above were modified via small text and [inserted remarks]. This was done because more accurate citation data as to Speaking of Liberty was found and added to the article text.15:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So there are three major problems that this listing exposes. One, we see that none (with one possible exception) [only two] of the citations say anything about LvMI [as an institution]. That is, they do not say "The views of the Ludwig von Mises Institute are.... " They are not RS because context matters. Two, the inclusion of the section violates policy because it goes beyond what has been "unambiguously identified [as] the article's subject. Three: it is SYN to say "Author X has such & such views, Author X is associated with LvMI, therefore LvMI has the same views as Author X.

Also consider that Mises.org publishes some 420 book titles written by two dozen authors. It sponsors a blog, seminars, conferences, a University, electronic media (452 videos and 274 audio, many available through iTunes). The inclusion of these particular listed items, whether or not they are primary source or supported by secondary sources, is the camel's nose under the tent. E.g., would we permit the listing to go on and on simply because Mises.org publishes their work? Without commenting on POVs that motivate the inclusion of these particular items, the whole section is improper. If there is RS that says LvMI holds to these particular views, then such material can be included. Otherwise this section must go. (But what do I know?) Please comment. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This section has been in the article for over 5 years and neither you nor anyone else has suggested blanking it until now. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is RS that supports description of the views of the institution, that would be great. But if the section violates policy, even for 5 years, there is no valid reason to keep it. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The views of an Institution's scholars are relevant to that Institution, particularly if said views are published by Mises.org (you can bet that if a mainstream institution such as a prominent university repeatedly published articles advocating climate change denial, it would be on its Wikipedia page). This is sheer silliness. What specifically would it mean for a scholar to say "The Mises Institute thinks blah blah blah? The Mises Institute, unlike its scholars, is not a rational being capable of forming an opinion; it is not even a conscious being; it is just a concept and a building. Steeletrap (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but following Srich's line of thought, we shouldn't even name the individuals because we don't have RS statements for each of them describing their relationship to vMI or what they do there. We might describe the building itself, but then again the building is not the Institute, which is an organization. We could try to find RS summaries of the Institute's bylaws but would that really be notable? Srich, while you're at it you should raise the same proposal on American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute and a dozen others. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

[inserted] We can use LvMI's listing of scholars, even if primary, because it is sufficiently reliable in context. We might even use their by-laws. Context matters. As for the other organizations, I don't think I have the time or energy or inclination to evaluate those articles in the same fashion. Aren't they strawmen? (Rich, you haven't raised the issue with those articles, therefore you are not on sound ground when you raise the issue here.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@sirich If only you'd shared that with us years ago, think of all the wasted energy that could have been channeled to productive ends. Needless to say, you'll need to demonstrate convincingly and by quoting the words of specific applicable policies (not just linking to entire policy pages) that this proposal should be taken seriously. It's a long shot. Tally ho! SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if I had thought of this back in May 2010, some 166 article edits ago, I'd have saved myself (and you, with 149 edits) a lot of work. Even so, I'm pretty sure I can garner community support and get this stuff taken out. Why? The policies are cited and quoted. (I wish I could explain it more clearly. Perhaps another editor will do a better job than I in the next few days.) If others don't chime in, I'll put up an RfC. Steeletrap, I think you are missing the importance of the policy that says we must give articles titles that are precise and concise. The article is about the institute, not the concept of an amorphous LvMI and building and various people associated with or affiliated with it. Once we say "this article is about the Ludwig von Mises Institute" we have stay within the four corners of that concept. The problem is one of going beyond the institute and into the thoughts of all the different people that have some connection with the institute. The SPLC reference gives us its' opinion about LvMI, and we can use it as long as we do so in context. Now if there is RS, preferably secondary sources, that says "LvMI is one of those lunatic organizations that supports the anti-climate change crowd", then we can use that stuff. But we are getting into OR when we find Evans (who is a change skeptic) and say "LvMI is an anti-climate change organization because they published this piece from Evans." – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to "explain it". What you need to do is document the applicable policies with quotations. The issue you raise, which applies to dozens of similarly constituted organizations and their WP articles will need to be resolved in a way that's consistent site-wide. An RfC at one such article will not establish the policy. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP is a side issue. And I do not think what happens here will set policy. (It sound like you think this is a project wide problem. If so, then LvMI may be a good place to start with the cleanup.) The question is: does this section comply with policy and guidelines? – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is, clearly yes. Ok, now that we've settled that, we can move on to more interesting issues, such as what the walls of the Institute think about global warming. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll suggest we need more than a "green" level of response. But RS as to what LvMI, as an institute, thinks on global warming might be helpful. On the other hand, what various individuals loosely associated with LvMI think is off-topic. As WP editors we should ask "Why should we keep the stuff listed? How does it improve the article? Is it here to provide a platform for those who think LvMI is great or garbage?" – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Check your premises. The LvMI scholars whose articles are published by the LvMI are not "loosely associated", so your conclusion does not follow. MilesMoney (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The premise holds up quite well. Of the various persons cited above, Lew Rockwell is the LvMI president and has more than a "loose" association. Well then, his article is the one where his views can be expounded upon. As editors, here, in this article, we must stay on topic and write WP:TERSELY, in WP:Summary style. Thus the description of Rockwell and his views, in this article, gets limited to "founded by Lew Rockwell, an American libertarian author and editor, self-professed anarcho-capitalist and promoter of the Austrian School of economics." Good WP writing about an institution does not spin off into debates which concern the various views of the people who have been published by the institution. When we say "LvMI published such-and-such article/book, therefore it is promoting the views of that author" we are injecting too much of our own views. Compare: I see that ISBN 0395925037 was first published in 1927 by Houghton Mifflin (OCLC 731423728). What does that tell us about Houghton Mifflin Harcourt? – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute § RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?

Endowment

Hopefully the endowment value is a less controversial topic. I corrected the endowment value here. It was subsequently removed here. The reference originally linked to total assets rather than the endowment value. The endowment value I posted was from the organization's Form 990, which GuideStar posted after receiving the 990 directly from the Internal Revenue Service. If this is still considered a primary source, it is an appropriate use. The endowment value on the 990 is very clear, and I even included the page number in the citation to help readers. I thought I would bring this discussion here to determine if the endowment should be reinstated. Having the endowment value of a 501(c)(3) exempt organization is helpful information in understanding their finances. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understand Orlady's edit summary, the "order of magnitude" concern comes from the $17mm figure that melissadata.com (once) gave compared to the $1.1mm figure from the 990. Well, I don't think the melissadata info can be applied to the line "endowment" we see in {{Infobox institute}}. (In other words, melissadata is not RS in this context.) If the template said "endowment -- use most recent 990 data", then we could use the 990 data. Even without that parameter description, I think the 990 data works as to this particular parameter. (Another question arises, though, with "budget" in the template. How is that defined and what is RS for "budget"?) – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I had several reasons for deleting the endowment information from the infobox. The most important of these is that the endowment is a detail that is not vital to this article. (The fact that a data field exists in the infobox template is not a mandate to fill in the information.)

As I noted in my edit summary when I deleted the item, the IRS Form 990 is a primary source. Primary sources generally are to avoided as sources. There are good reasons for this. There is inherently a certain amount of interpretation to required to determine the meaning of an entry on an IRS form. Also, when articles are based on information that Wikipedia contributors obtained by digging into sources like IRS forms, there is a huge potential for undue emphasis and various forms of coatracking. If the endowment was considered an important aspect of the Institute, don't you think it would have been reported or discussed by a secondary source? --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the number from melissadata.com was incorrect for total assets, because that was what the citation was for. The citation did not show the endowment, so that is what I corrected. I equate posting the endowment here as we do for universities. GuideStar's posting of Form 990 information is the same as NACUBO posting content that universities and their foundations submit directly to NACUBO. When the IRS form states this is the value of the endowment, then that's what it is. I don't think quantitive data in the infobox is undue. I hope the endowment value is reinstated. Bahooka (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Assets and endowment aren't necessarily the same thing. Most university articles that list an endowment do cite data published by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO, nacubo.org). NACUBO is a reliable secondary source that endeavors to publish consistent data for different institutions. Reproducing information published by NACUBO is a far cry from individual Wikipedia contributors extracting information from the IRS Form 990, or declaring that "assets" can be equated with "endowment".

In other articles about organizations, I've seen Wikipedia contributors extract data like officers' salaries from Form 990, then use that information in the article to depict the organization in a negative fashion. This article has plenty of other issues to iron out; it's not a good idea to squabble about the financial data on its Form 990. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I had no intent of portraying the subject of this article in any certain kind of light. And I was trying to make the point that assets and endowments are not the same thing. I'm not really interested in the other parts of this article except for some WikiGnome activity, so I'll just wait to see if others agree with including this information. Bahooka (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?

Should the "Ludwig von Mises Institute#Views espoused by founders and organization scholars" section be in the article? (Please note, this is related to Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Off topic section on the "Mises.org scholars", which was continued at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Off-topic section: "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars") – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Off-topic (by OP) – they should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete section. Any salvageable bits which discuss an overarching theme of opinions traceable to LvMI as a whole should be reworked to show the general LvMI stance. Individual stances which are not described in relation to the general LvMI stance should not be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete By it's title it is off topic. Also full of WP:OR, with editor-created inferences/impressions synthesized from primary sources. If there are any positions of the institute in there, they could go back in somewhere else. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to something like "notable writings" and then include only those writings made notable because WP:RS have noted that Mises Institute published them and/or where WP:RS make much of the fact that author of some writings is involved with the Mises Institute which influenced the writing. (See WP:Original research on making sure " reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". Also let's avoid POV Wikipedia:Coatrack. User:Carolmooredc 19:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Close RfC without action. This RfC has not defined the problem it is intended to correct. Editing should proceed by discussion of content and policy, not wholsesale surgery. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Leave it be - Obviously the views of members of the Institute are relevant to the Institute. This is doubly so for the views of its founders and leaders. If there is any issue with specific sources or statements, I'm entirely willing to work to deal with them, of course. MilesMoney (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep some, delete some The Confederate stuff should stay because the SPLC RS explicitly attributes "neoconfederate" it to LvMI as an institution (and Lew Rockwell says "we" (presumably speaking for LvMI) basically endorse 'Confederate ideology' in response). Global warming and IPRs should be deleted because no RS characterize these views as institutional. Steeletrap (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all items that do not explicitly discuss the LvMI as an organisation - anything else is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me, but I'm okay with the details expressed e.g. Binksternet's "Delete" vote -- if it's in the wrong section then sure, move it. The idea that you can separate the think tank from the Austrian School opinions isn't okay with me though. 210.13.83.18 (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I am an uninvolved user (apart from commenting on the noticeboard threads in favour of excluding various sources and topic-banning MilesMoney). I don't see a problem as such with discussing works published by the Institute, provided the article does not say that the views in them are the Institute's. It seems to me that the publications of the Institute do fall within the topic of an article about the Institute, and the fact that the views are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute is irrelevant. Would we really say that an article about, say, Penguin Group or Random House could not discuss some of the well-known books they have published, because they represent the views of the author not the publisher? Even more relevantly, would we say that our article on Viking Press could not discuss the controversy over the The Satanic Verses because the statements in it were Rushdie's and not necessarily endorsed by the company? However, Carolmooredc is probably right that references to secondary sources that discuss the writings in the context of the Institute should be found. This shouldn't be difficult - I'm sure lots of the critiques of the Institute refer to things it has published. Finally, SPECIFICO is clearly correct that the Confederate stuff referenced to the SPLC should stay. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Rewrite to balance I suggest changing the title of the section to 'Views', with a subsection 'founders' and another subsection 'leading scholars'. In those sections, the views of the founders should be detailed in a balanced NPV section (per policy WP:WEIGHT) with weight according to what has been noted in external reliable sources. The same for the section on scholars. LK (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(by OP) The exceptions to the off-topic entries are footnotes 29 (SPLC reference) and 33 (a response to SPLC). – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, to be clear, are you advocating deleting the entire section (including the Confederate section, in which an RS attributes these views to LvMI as an institution, not just individual scholars)? Or are you just advocating deleting particular parts of it? Try to be more specific. Steeletrap (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Entire section. Leaving it in, or even as a sub-sub-section titled as a "views of scholars", is the Camel's nose under the tent. The topic of the article is the institution, not people who advocate for or against particular views. Mention of SPLC's criticism of LvMI – as an institution – and a shortened reply from Rockwell, should be incorporated into the criticisms section. Another example, we have Ferrera's comment, which I think is appropriate, in that section. The Ferrera comment does not talk about the views of particular people. If it did, then BALANCE would require the other side of the view, which in turn might lead to non-Mises.org citations from the respondents. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OR to infer that the views of Institution scholars, published by the Institute, don't relate to the views of the Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Huh? wp:OR is a condition/requirement for the presence of material in article space! North8000 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing, Srich32977. Are you objecting to the title of the section? I don't think that's what you intend. Do you mean all the current content? The section has been in the article for years and the content changes over time. Do you mean that some or all of the current content violates WP policy? If there is consensus to that effect then such content should be removed from the article. What are we deciding here? If there's a principle or policy which defines all the content you propose to remove, that rule should be stated in as specific and operational a way as possible so that the decision, yes or no, can be implemented when the question is decided. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Steeletrap: An example of OR in play is footnote 37 (in the listing above). (A) "Evans wrote this about global warming." (B) "Mises published it." Conclusion/inference: (C) "Whatever Evans wrote is the view of the institution." If we are going to say "this idea represents the views of the institution" then we need RS that directly supports. Merely saying there is a relationship, and therefore publishing something means the institution holds such views, is not sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeltrap, I think that the current wording is whether or not to remove the section. While that does open up other questions (e.g. on retention of some material elsewhere) I think that it's clear that the is not about whether any specified / particular policy mandates removal. If such were the case I don't think there would be an RFC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Specifico: The entire section, as it seeks to restate various ideas of people associated with Mises.org, should go. If there is RS which supports a description of the views of the institution, then such information can go into the text in a more general sense. Why? Because it violates policy when SYN is undertaken and when it strays from the topic of the article. (See my introductory paragraph in the talk, above.) The individual views of people published by Mises.org can be expounded upon in their articles. And the general descriptions of the founders, derived from their WP articles, can be used to describe them. Just because the section has been in the article for years does not excuse continued inclusion if it violates policy. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert]@ Srich32977 - Srich, I didn't say that the longevity of his section header is a reason to keep it in the article. From your response above, it now sounds to me as if you'd actually be OK keeping the section header or something similar but that you believe that we need to decide a test as to when the section's content violates policy. Looking at the current content I think one could argue that the Kinsella intellectual property bit should be removed because nothing associates it with the Institute. Looking at the remainder of the current content, could you identify and state an example of SYN. I'm not seeing it. I don't think that institutions have "views" -- individuals have views. What operational test do you suggest would be implemented if your proposal is adopted? If you don't mind please go back to my first post above and, without reference to the current content of the section -- let's pretend it's all been reverted -- reply to my question so that the result of his RfC can be implemented through a clear, operational, policy-based test. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should explain what sorts of positions the Institute supports. However, it should be based on secondary sources rather than selected articles. For example, the article says that the LvMI has published articles challenging climate science. But so has all of mainstream media. We need a source that explains that this is typical of them, that the Institute pushes these types of views. Otherwise it is just editors forming their own views. Srich32977|S, I do not think rs must say that they are the views of the institution, merely that they are the sorts of views that are typically presented. TFD (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Good points. So "typically presents" is an in-between bar, and I think a good one. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Good point, TFD. On this view, the Neoconfederate stuff would fit (per the SPLC RS and Rockwell's response), but the IPRs/global warming stuff wouldn't, at least not yet. Steeletrap (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If that is the test, it appears that some of the current content of that section would remain in the article? SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Specifico: I'm not sure I can explain it any better that how I did in the talk page sections above. But your comment to North prompts me to ask you: "What content in the section would you keep and why?" (For my part, I think the SPLC citation & Rothwell's response are appropriate to incorporate, perhaps in the criticism section. But I cannot see how any of the remaining 13 citations are appropriate. Am I repeating myself?)

[insert] @Srich32977 I am not talking about which content I would keep or delete. I have no opinion yet. I'm just at the stage of trying to clarify the question. I am trying to understand in operational terms how TFD/North's criterion would apply to the current content. If you are in fact repeating yourself, I'm not likely to understand better the second time. Let's say the entire current section is deleted. What would we then include elsewhere as to the theories and opinions of Mises Institute's Senior Fellows, Mises Daily writers, and the authors of the books vMI publishes? And why? What principle and what operational test do we apply when considering sources which discuss such work? As you know, this Institute, like many similar ones, doesn't issue proclamations which state "its" views. I also note that the WP articles of other Institutes do include discussion of the work of it's employees/members/affiliates/authors. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD: I'm having difficulty in reconciling "just editors forming their own views" and "rs [is not needed] to say these views are typically presented" and "we need a source that they are [pushing climate science] views". IMO we need secondary RS for any/everything that describes the views of Mises.org. (Please forgive my rough paraphrasing.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977, what do you mean, "the views of Mises.org?" Mises Institute doesn't have views. That is why this section is entitled "views of founders and scholars" There is no statement or implication that the Institute itself has "views." Please clarify. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am saying we do not need a source that says "the views of LvMI are x, y and z." But we could say that the views typically presented are x, y and z, provided a reliable secondary source says that. It could be for example that the LvMI has no position on global warming and publishes articles by people who accept the science but provides more space to global warming skeptics. That should probably be mentioned, but it depends on whether that observation has been noted in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Specifico: In a sense what you say is true – but the organization does have its mission statement which says it is "dedicated to ....". So their own description provides some idea of what it is about. But let me ask this: "What were SPLC & Ferrera referring to when they made their criticisms?"

By comparison, we might look at the Democratic & Republican parties. They have platforms which pinpoint their positions. With that in mind, we would/should not go and add comments about the positions that individual politicians of various parties have taken. Or take another (and closer) comparision: the Hoover Institution and Brookings Institution have their mission statements. But it would be unencyclopedic for us to add a section titled "Views espoused by Hoover/Brookings Institution Fellows". (Yes, I know different articles on different organizations have such sections, but that does not mean they comply with policy in terms of staying true to the focus of those articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert] You're just asserting your view with no supporting policy or logic. The Hoover Institution, Cato Institute, and American Enterprise Institute articles are full of statements of affiliated individuals' views and theories. Perhaps you should open parallel RfC's there. If nothing else you'll get a greater diversity of editors to react to your position. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@TFD - That sounds reasonable to me, but it also raises a question. I think it's relatively unlikely we'll find sources which report the authors' survey of all the Mises Institute affiliates' writings and write, in conclusion, that their views are "typically X" or "mostly X". We've seen RS statements that vMI was "full of X" or that it has "a lot of X". What we do seem to find are cases in which independent RS A states that a Mises author states X, and also that RS B states a Mises author states X and also that RS C says a Mises author states X. In such a case, if I understand Srich32977 correctly, I think that he believes we should not report those views because they are the views of individual employees/fellows/scholars and are off-topic for this article about the Institute. That seems incorrect to me. Without stating that it's the "Institute's view", I think these affiliates' opinions should be stated here because when they are stated on the individuals' personal articles the information that a cluster of this view exists among Mises affiliates is lost. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We should be able to find a source. For example a book about think tanks or conservative or libertarian organizations might provide a description of what one is likely to find on the LvMI website. S. Rich, U.S. parties have no control over their membership, but in countries where they do, views expressed by individual members, especially elected officials, do reflect on their parties, and if they express extreme views they are routinely expelled. If they do not then it becomes relevant to their description. TFD (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The "cluster of this view" must be noticed by reliable sources or you are violating SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: With this edit [28] you seem to agree that certain of the "views espoused" are not those of the organization. And you seem to agree that secondary RS is needed, such as what SPLC has provided/opined, that gives us WP:V on what Mises.org's "views" are. Likewise, I'd think you'd agree that "views" from MBA students, self-educated economists, and long-dead Mises himself do not reflect "views espoused by founders & organization scholars." That does not leave much out of the 15 citations I provided above. With this in mind, I hope you will respond in the Survey section with an "off-topic" opinion. Doing so won't preclude future edits to the article in which criticisms about Mises.org (pro & con) are supported by RS.

@The Four Deuces: Likewise, TFD, I read your comments as supporting inclusion of views espoused "...provided a reliable secondary source says that." (Emphasis added.) Indeed, much of my argument has been that we cannot simply say "Mises.org associated scholar said X about Y and thereby imply (Z) that Mises.org is supporting or adopts whatever that person says. It gets worse when non-Mises.org publications are cited, as in LewRockwell.com (items 30, 31, & 32, above) Indeed, we'd really be engaging in OR if one Mises.org person said "this" and another said "that" and presented the differing views without support from secondary RS. With these thoughts in mind, I hope you will post a response in the Survey section. Thanks to you both. – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I challenge you to Google "ludwig von mises institute global warming denial", skim some of what comes back, and then say with a straight face that the Institute isn't associated with global warming denial. MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is. But policy prevents us from original research. S. Rich, I do not oppose reporting what views are typically published on the website, I just want a source. TFD (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I'm not sure what you are saying. We all agree policy forbids OR, so I gather you are responding to MilesMoney's Google challenge. Along the same lines, I think you agree we need secondary sources that comment on what Mises.org publishes. (And by publishes, I hope you don't confine it to their website. They've got podcasts, books, blog material, seminars.) If you agree that secondary sourcing is required, post a comment in the Survey that supports removal of the primary source listing of "views". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, this RfC says should the section be deleted, yes or no. Why instruct editors to give survey responses which don't correspond to the RfC question. You're instructing editors to respond one by one to separate off-topic questions and assigning a different issue to each editor. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Lawyering over the semantics is normal (and generally pointless) for RfCs. Work out the consensus (noting that WP:CONSENSUS only accepts policy-based rationales) and then deal with an awkward details in the aftermath. The consensus here is clear that we need secondary sources that discuss the institute, rather than an amalgam of primary material and sources discussing individuals. There is no opt-out of WP:OR and thus the objections above are mostly non-compliant and can safely be ignored.

The stuff remains in the history. If someone wants to propose reinstatement of anything that was removed then they will be welcome to examine that history, to propose the wording of such a reinstatement and to propose where it might be situated.. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Neljack's comments (at various sections) has prompted me to take another look at WP:NOTFORUM. When we start exploring climate change, etc., and the views that Mises.org associated people say on various subjects, we are improperly providing a forum. As policy reminds us, Wikinews is available for such topics. And Wikinews should be the place were these Mises.org people get to say their piece. Using this article, which is about the institution, as a forum for those topics is against policy. – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neljack doesn't understand that even if all the editors were totally neutral, without secondary sources it is difficult to tell what is the most notable material published and it would be guessing/personal opinion/WP:OR. As it is now, of course, this is just another biased coatrack of POV attack material by extremely biased editors. Maybe I'll rewrite the section in a neutral tone and then take it to the noticeboard if I get the same biased response. Also some of the material in that section is criticism which should be moved down to that section. I think the more appropriate tag is a section neutrality tag: {{POV-section|date=October 2013}} User:Carolmooredc 13:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Neljack: The Viking Press, Penguin, and Random House articles do not have sections about particular books they have published. Consider, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt was one of the first publishers of this book OCLC 422218247, 1955647, but there is no mention of that fact in the article. (Nor, in accordance with WP:NOTFORUM, would it be appropriate for the article.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, the point of WP:NOTFORUM is that WP is not a forum for general discussions of topics, but for creating encyclopaedia entries on them. It's not applicable here. Provided that reliable secondary sources that discuss the writings in the context of the Institute can be found, the material can be included - it's not outside the scope of the article. On the point about publishers, to take an example, Penguin Books discusses a number of books they've published that have caused controversy, including Lady Chatterley's Lover and The Satanic Verses. Neljack (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, we are in agreement - in my comment I stated that you were probably right on the need for secondary sources. Further thinking has confirmed that conclusion. Given the contentious subject-matter and the BLP issues (some of these works, at least, were written by people who still alive), simply relying on primary sources would not be appropriate. Neljack (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Neljack: The citation to Penguin proves the point. Mention is made of the fact that Chattereley & Satanic were published (notable facts/events in and of themselves), but the article does not delve into the controversies surrounding the books or their contents. In this article the addition of the actual views of the LvMI scholars violates NOTFORUM & TOPIC because the focus of the article is the institute – not the Mutts & Jeffs (or their views) who have some "relationship" with the institute. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, if reliable sources discussing the Institute talk about them, then they fall within the subject of the article and can be included. For instance, if certain publications have lead to lots of criticism of the Institute they can be discussed, so long as the material can be referenced to reliable secondary sources. Neljack (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 Please review wp:NOTFORUM and correct your remarks on this page. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

---

In light of the administrator's final closing of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute, which addresses the usage of blog material, etc. in this article, I think it is proper to close this discussion and remove the material. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Polemicist revisited

The last time we talked about Rothbard as a polemicist, there was no consensus. One source talked about Rothbard as a polemicist but many sources assigned other descriptors to his career, mostly having to do with libertarian economics theories, economics history, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and so on. Polemics are a means to an end, and Rothbard certainly used this means, however he was never a polemicist by trade—rather, he was a theorist who put forward his theories in a vigorous manner. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The question of how to describe Rothbard is one for the Murray Rothbard article. As there is a general description there (whatever it is), that description should be used here for WP consistency. WP:SURPRISE gives advice. We do not want one article to describe someone in one set of terms and have another article use different terms. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't lack for reliable sources describing him as a polemicist, so why would you want to remove this from either article? MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bink, you removed "polemicist", but your bold change was reverted. Instead of waiting for some sort of consensus, you edit-warred. Please follow WP:BRD. Explain how the sources calling him a polemicist are somehow invalid, or leave it alone. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Noting that Rothbard was an instructor of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic describes his substantive role as an economist. I don't see why we have to use the vague word "economist" rather than describing Rothbard's actual work. Would you still prefer "economist" had Rothbard been a professor at Princeton, and I wrote "Professor of Economics" at Princeton University?Steeletrap (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I know next to nothing about the subject matter but picking up on Srich's point, the emphasis at Murray Rothbard is on his role as an economist etc. His role as a polemicist is given significantly less weight in the lead. (Please don't take the battle over to that article - the various parties seem already to have been involved with it for some time, so let's assume that the weighting is correct provided that it is sourced. There is no point in spreading more bile and disagreement when it already seems likely that sanctions will be enforced). - Sitush (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, please try to be civil, and not use terms like "bile" or engage in speculation about the enforcement of sanctions. Focus on content, not contributors.

As to your substantive point, the article in its current form describes Rothbard's work as an economist (i.e. as an instructor at Brooklyn Polytechnic). I am not against putting that before "polemicist", and in fact will do that now. Steeletrap (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm ok with that change, although it's not how I'd prefer it. The key point here is that, based on his "day job" of teaching economics at Polytech, he would not be at all notable. His notability comes from his political activism, particularly in the form of polemic writings in support of various forms of libertarianism over the years. We have to mention that he taught economics, because it's true and relevant, but we would be violating any number of policies if we gave that prominence exceeding his claim to fame. MilesMoney (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted purely on a technicality - I have no opinion regarding the edit but if people are going to cite BRD then they should also follow it. To do so requires that you discuss at this point, obtaining consensus before going any further. I suggest that proposed wordings are provided and a suitable time is allowed for the input of the various involved parties. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

[Reply to Miles] I wouldn't prefer it either. But as fate would have it, Sitush has reverted my edit and (inexplicably, given that the edit wasn't a revert/was an attempt at compromise) accused me of 'warring.' So I guess our preferred version stays! Steeletrap (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A revert can be "in kind" rather than identical: seek agreement, please. It seems that you are prepared to go some way, which is great, but you cannot force a preferred ("least-bad"?) version with some sort of pre-emptive strike. Others may wish to adjust in a more significant manner. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, there was a substantial difference between this and this. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The version you reverted from was Steele's attempt to soften up my version with a compromise that makes it closer to Binksternet's version. I don't see how this is productive in any way, much less how it is justified by policy. BRD suggests that Binksternet should accept the revert. It doesn't in any way imply that Steele shouldn't try to accommodate Binksternet's intent. MilesMoney (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Steele made up a compromise. In particular, it was made up without canvassing the views of the person who was previously reverted. The history of this and related articles should be a warnign to all that you're going to have to discuss pretty much everything, and BRD most definitely does not say that Binksternet should accept the revert. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

When people mention rules, I read up on them. WP:BRD says:

• Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.

I don't think that could be any clearer: Binksternet was edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Since Sitush, an uninvolved editor, is opining, let me merely ask: if editor(s) have a six to 12 month history of trying to downgrade the credibility of BLPs, in their own articles and other articles, and have freely talked about why those people should be rendered un-credible (no matter what some WP:RS may say, WP:RS info they usually try to eliminate entirely, like the 7 refs calling Rothbard an Austrian economist), at what point does it become an automatic and justified action to revert such attempts? At what point does it just become a violation of NPOV to have to debate every single edit of theirs over and over again for hours a day?? Isn't that the definition of POV/disruptive editing? I gave up on such frustrating debates myself (and refusal of community to opine). This is the point I'm having trouble getting addressed. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 13:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I haven't commented on an edit war: my emphasis has been on BRD since there is clearly a difference of opinion. BRD says that you should discuss to achieve consensus, not that you should put a note on a talk page and then go ahead and do your thing. Carolmooredc, see WP:TE - there is no well-defined point but people do frequently find themselves in trouble for breaching it, usually because it becomes self-evident. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Carol, this really isn't the place to bring up your subjective (which found no support at multiple ANIs you filed) interpretation of another user's conduct. Please focus on content, not contributors. As to your addition of the "then" qualifier regarding Rothbard's tenure Brooklyn (where he stayed until he was 60, when a private (non-academic) source paid UNLV to endow a chair for him), this seems superfluous but not at all objectionable to me. Steeletrap (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sitush: thanks for reminder. I guess one just needs to cover more of those categories with more examples than I've done in past complaints. We'll see how much of a conflict ensues over my adding "then" instructor, since some will not like the inference he may have risen to professor a few years later, which of course he did. (Couldn't help but add, but as soon as I see revert and hear some absurd rationale I'll get ticked and be out of here.) User:Carolmooredc 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Blog & law student commentary

In this edit [29] an item with two citations, previously added in a Bold edit and then removed in a Revert, have been restored. To Discuss, I note the edit adds blog material and old commentary from a law student. While The Volokh Conspiracy may be a noted blog, it does not qualify as RS because it does not have editorial control and is admittedly a blog. Also, because the particular comment involves living people, comments in it come within WP:BLP policy. This issue was raised at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19#The Volokh Conspiracy .28legal blog.29 and found not acceptable RS. Second item: While LRC might be RS for certain authors and articles, in this context the comments of a law student, whether as to fact or opinion, are not RS. LRC may have published the piece, but it is not much more than a letter to the editor. – S. Rich (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy is regularly cited by prestigious sources such as the NYT, as well as on WP, so your argument is quite odd there... As to the latter point, by the standards established by this community, LewRockwell.com's publishing a long article by an individual makes him an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad that's settled. Let's move on to more interesting issues. MilesMoney (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Even if VC is cited by other organizations, it is a group blog and WP:BLOGS specifically says group blogs "are largely not acceptable as sources." 2. As the VC comments involve living persons, WP:BLP applies. And I cited an earlier RSN discussion which involved this particular issue. With these two policies in mind, the WP:BURDEN is on you, Steeletrap, to justify inclusion. Next, while not a blog, the LRC piece was written by a law student. (But what do I know about law students?) Are you suggesting that anything published in LRC automatically becomes RS simply because LRC publishes it? If that reflected policy or guidelines, then we would never look at the quality of the material or authority of the author, and simply say "I read it on the Internet, therefore it is RS." Accordingly, the issue is not settled – and simply saying so does not make it so. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, it's disruptive to misrepresent the statements of other editors, throw out straw man arguments, and tag this text when your concern has been responded to and resolved here on talk. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Misrepresent statements of other editors?" What misrepresentation are you referring to? "Strawman arguments?" Please specify. "Tag text?" Do you mean tagging the blog which is the subject of this discussion? I'm asking that Steeletrap justify the inclusion of blog material that involves a third party and to show the law student commentary is RS. Let me add that VC commentary on WP, in articles that do not involve third parties or living people, may be pertinent to those articles since the bloggers are commenting about subjects in which they are published experts. But those citations do not excuse citations in this article which violate policy. "Disruptive?" Jeez! Please respond to the points made and address the issues by refuting my points. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Newyorkbrad could comment on whether Volokh is an RS here. I think he's written for them in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if WP:Blogs applies to Volokh (I don't think it does; it's really more of a news/commentary site akin to HuffPost at this point), that's irrelevant in this context since the cited statements don't refer to a particular individual. Steeletrap (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to what Steeletrap says, I think we need to set aside this issue, which has repeatedly been raised and rejected, that a blog or SPS can be impeached due to any reference at all to real world "parties" defined as humans, organizations, events, beasts, or furniture. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is rs for what David Bernstein wrote on the site: "(I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don't want my name associated with the Institute.)" His reason is that they "play footsie" with conspiracy theorists. I do not know if including this meets WP:WEIGHT, but we should be looking for sources that are directly about the LvMI, not ones that just mention them in passing. TFD (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If Bernstein were writing in a newsblog, that would be one thing. But VR clearly describes itself as a group blog, which specifically comes under the restrictions of SPS. He is not writing about a subject in which he is an expert. Regarding Specifico's comment, the Callahan and Murphy blogs were discussed on the RSN. And in both cases the decision was against using their blogs. (BTW, I've seen objections to HuffPost commentaries which had greater pertinence to the [another] article than what Bernstein's blog has to this one. And "events, beasts, or furniture"? How can one construe "third parties" to include such items?) – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, it's logically incorrect to point to an instance of denial by RSN and then, based only on your personal view that other cases are identical to what was denied, to assert that RSN also denied other cases which differ in various respects and which were not described in the RSN finding. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand Specifico's comment "which has repeatedly been raised and rejected". (It is, for me, a rather confusing sentence.) The analysis as to this blog and the blogs discussed on the RSN is identical. The only differences are in the particular comments the bloggers were making. In each case they were not commenting on subjects in which they are experts. – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are correct: You do misunderstand. I've said it as clearly as I can. SPECIFICO signing out. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As Bernstein suggests, LvMI combines respectable libertarian writing with conspiracy theories. Rothbard himself believed that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, and the site has writings by Barnes, who was a WW2 conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier. But we should use a good source if we wish to say that. If for example the NYT said that, then we could rely on their fact-checking, and if they were wrong, then the LvMI could attempt to correct them, or explain why they do that. We could also avoid the inelegant use of in-line citation, "according to so-and-so", which leaves the reader wondering who so-and-so is and why his opinion matters. TFD (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I just made a few changes. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why single out law student? Llewellyn just has a B.A. and a pretty short employment record. This is quite silly. What makes something an RS isn't the author, but the publisher. If the community deems LRC an RS, its article (like those of the NYT) are conidered RS until proven otherwise, irrespective of who authored it. Steeletrap (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just take it to WP:RSN and see if the opinion has changed or it's relevance here. Meanwhile, per edit summar, "an NPOV encyclopedia does not throw out smear charges without context or explanation; I have added them" to Huebert's statement. User:Carolmooredc 14:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) The purpose of these tags is to lead to constructive discussion about the content. If you're just leaving these tags to make the article look amateurish and have no intention of defending your objections, then there's no reason to keep the tags any longer. MilesMoney (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to fully weigh in here, but wanted to point out a dichotomy. The lowest bar for wp:rs might be just to support the cited statement. But when we get into areas of wp:npov (and secondarily also into areas of editor discretion regarding degree of relevance) with respect to questioned entries, I think that the bar has to be higher, when some somewhat respectable source has made the statement and it's association/relevance with the topic of the article. For example, if the county clerk has certified that US President XYZ's cabinet member John Smith was later convicted of child molesting, that source might be sufficient to include the fact in the John Smith article, but not sufficient to include it in the President XYZ article. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The only issue would be whether Smith's behavior is relevant to the President. If we have strong enough sources to call Smith a child molester despite WP:BLP, we can certainly mention it in articles where it's important. Again, the question is whether it's important. MilesMoney (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and I think that you are agreeing with me. I think that two additional things in my point are that whether or not a source has tied it to the subject of the article or asserted importance with respect to the topic of the article, and the degree of the reliability (including degree of wp:rs) of the source for that assertion of relevance/importance should be influential in the discussion. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy is WP:COATRACK. Mentioning Smith's perversions on his boss's page in an attempt to smear his boss would be a violation. But to change the example to make it closer to our own, imagine if the President insisted that he stands behind Smith and endorses Smith's behavior, even after finding out that Smith raped some children. Then it would make perfect sense to mention Smith on the President's article because the President brought Smith up. With Barnes, the founder of the LmVI endorsed him even after his Holocaust denialism was well-known. On that basis, I believe it fits into the LmVI article. 14:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC) (By MilesMoney)

I'm not deep in enough to have a solid opinion on that but at first glance it looks twice removed. Organization(article subject) -> person -> person. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000 makes a good point on NPOV, but the examples have totally lost me. Meanwhile to remind you what WP:COATRACK means A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. The irrelevant and biased material is all the negative material thrown in, no matter how minor the incident or source, in order to discredit the whole Mises anti-state project. User:Carolmooredc 15:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Carolemoordc, you wrote: "the whole Mises anti-state project." What is that?? That term means nothing to anyone other than yourself. Your statement is meaningless. Your message is itself an example of a coatrack. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Since we are talking Coatrack, I'm identifying a possible subject which might be Mises be anti-state; it could be an anti-Alabama or an anti-institutes named after people from Europe coatrack. I'm just identifying most likely coatrack. I mean how else can we define a term applied to a specific article. Miles Money might define what he considers the coatrack (which is an essay related to neutrality by the way - see categories). User:Carolmooredc 16:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of this is moot because the manner in which it is being used is a violation of BLP via a synthesis of what Bernstein actually said. He did not explicitly state that LVM played "footsie" with racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. It requires putting two separate paragraphs together and implying what Bernstein meant. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, I can read. The source says: "other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them.". There is nothing to synthesize; it's all right there in plain sight. MilesMoney (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you read the previous paragraph? Because Bernstein does not explicitly state what you are saying he does. That is a clear violation of BLP and Synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I can read. In fact, here are the two relevant paragraphs:

Yet, as Kirchik in TNR notes, there are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.

Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them. (I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don't want my name associated with the Institute.) Paul himself seems to have made a career of straddling the line between respectable libertarian sentiment and conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, receiving support and accolades from both sides.

I think this makes it clear that your argument does not hold water. MilesMoney (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to see you double down on your BLP and synthesis. It says a lot about your purpose here at WP. Arzel (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a productive comment. Please talk about what the source says, not how angry you are about it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Arzel would have the article simply say "THEM" without identifying who the "THEM" refers to. — goethean 02:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arzel is just objectively misunderstanding the passage. "them" refers to racists, conspiracy theorists, and anti-semites. That's just an objective logical inference from the passage. Arzel's confusion is rooted in the fact that the "them" and the description of "them" are separated by a couple lines. Steeletrap (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the impression I get is that Arzel is saying that understanding everyday English, such as by decoding what a pronoun refers to, goes far beyond what editors are allowed to do. This doesn't actually make any sense to me, so I'm hoping that I got it wrong. As always, I'm open to correction. MilesMoney (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

When you are attributing something to someone specifically you are not allowed to "decode" what they have said. Arzel (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that WP:NOR does not forbid basic English comprehension. MilesMoney (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel that "racists, Anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists" is not exactly what Bernstein wrote and we cannot automatically imply that he meant LvMi are guilty of all the examples of conspiracy theories and social fringe attitudes he states exist in one fraction of the libertarian movement. I think "conspiracy theorists" is an OK interpretation, because that's the broad category he uses for all this and the centre of his focus, but specific categories like racists, anti-Semites are more debatable. And I think accusations of racism, anti-Semitism should have more substantial sources than this (as two of the founders, including the one the institution is names after are Jews who fled nazism; the institutions relation to anti-Semitim for instance would seem to merit a more complex analysis). On the other hand, I don't quite understand what the BLP issue is; is this related to Bernstein or to the Institute? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a Bernstein issue. If we are going to attribute something to him, we have to be absolutely sure that what we attribute is correct. Arzel (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Good thing we're absolutely sure. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Iselilja. Two of the founders are what? Actually, Murray grew up in rent-controlled New York city attending private school. Blumert's from California. Please strike that part. I presume those are the two you were considering. At any rate, if you wouldn't mind striking that since it's ad hominem anyway and doesn't relate to the content issue at hand. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up a bit here. I thought Mises was one of the founders. But anyway, the institution is named after him, a Jew who fled nazism. And Rothbard was Jewish, which is normally not the typical anti-Semititts. I don't know what you mean by ad hominem attack? I just say calling an institution which is strongly linked to Jews for flirting with anti-Semitism calls for more thorough analysis than we are given in this source. And, I think sources with more substantial analysis than a mention in passing on a blog is preferable or required anyway for this kind of accusation (racism, anti-semitism). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The quote says "other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them". Please explain what "them" refers to if not "the latter types", which itself refers to racists and such. I cannot imagine a plausible explanation, but I look forward to being proven wrong. MilesMoney (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not about you being "proven wrong" about what Bernstein said, it is about making sure that you don't say something he did not intend. We are not allowed to edit the comments of other editors, what makes you think we can edit the comments of living people to say what you "think" they wanted to say. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, I know we've had some trouble communicating, so I'm going to make this very simple for you. If neither you nor Iselilja (nor anyone else) can come up with even a plausible alternative explanation, then we know that we are absolutely certain that we're correctly interpreting Bernstein.

Do you have any alternative? Please answer with a yes or no, and if the former, with a specific alternative. Any answer that is not in this format will be understood as a no. Thank you for working with me on this. MilesMoney (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, don't use think that you "know" what Bernstein was saying. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. If you say "yes" then you need to offer a plausible alternative. You have not done so, therefore we're moving on. MilesMoney (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you deciding to be a WP:DICK does not allow you to claim an end to the discussion. Arzel (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a personal attack and is entirely counterproductive. If you ever do come up with even a plausible alternative explanation, I'm still here. Until then, I don't see anything else to discuss. Do you? MilesMoney (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your flippant response to me and your ultimatum were personal attacks, I simply responded in kind. Arzel (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My remarks are entirely earnest. Regardless, you are not permitted to use the perception of being personally attacked as a justification for launching your own personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA. I also recommend that you refactor your comments to remove what you now admit is an intentional personal attack. MilesMoney (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you, and your comments in the below section only give me further reasons to not believe you. I find that clever insults to be more annoying because it shows a lack of respect. I am done with this part of the discussion. Arzel (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If the belief by MM is that the "latter types" refers to "and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc." then it should be noted that Bernstein clearly applies the word "range" to a whole host of issues, but does not ascribe any specific one to LVM. This is really the root of the problem as it is original research for us to say that apply those specific issues to LVM. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a belief, it's an obvious fact that nobody can dispute. As for which items refer to the LvMI, we don't need to resolve that. We can quote the original and allow the reader to interpret it without our help. MilesMoney (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding NPOV info

Unfortunately, critics/opponents of various subjects/articles often are more motivated to add negative material than less motivated editors (including myself) are to add neutral or positive info.(Of course, WP:NPOV policy encourages all editors to create a neutral article.) Nevertheless, just to prove there is such info I did, for starters, a quick Highbeam search of "Mises Institute" (which had far more hits). Other searches include Google News archive of "ludwig von mises institute" (Mises Institute might produce more/better hits). And same can be done with books and scholar google. From Highbeam, things of interest, though I might not include all myself:

• Prof. Pascal Salin saying nice things.
• Univ Press release on LVMI publishing professors papers
• Media appearances which could include more to be found in a paragraph in relevant section:

1. Thorton interviewed on NPR
2. Woods for LVMI interviewed on NPR

• Notable books published by Institute could be a paragraph or section:

1. Doherty book review of “Rothbard vs. the Philosophers”, by Murray Rothbard, edited by Roberta A. Modugno, Ludwig von Mises Institute
2. Denson, editor, Reassessing the Presidency: the Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom.

More can be added below... User:Carolmooredc 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

These appear dubious to me, but if you believe that they are RS for specific text which you wish to add to the article, then make those additions and we will follow WP process to evaluate the content and citations. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's just a general search, of course. It's often more productive to add a relevant term for the topic/source/etc. under discussion. Of course, I'm sure certain topics have been all searched out, if recent contributions on similar topics are included. User:Carolmooredc

As you know, I don't favor googling as a research tool, but I do look forward to seeing whatever text you propose to add to the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Several unreliable sources?

It looks like there's been discussion of some of the above but no real resolution. The newest being the Ferrara piece, written by a highly biased publication labeled a hate site by SPLC? I don't think even LVMI has been labeled a hate site. (I removed the alleged Arnold Kling article which was not at the dead link or the couple questionable sites it was mirrored at; no original site of article mentioned; it could be a hoax, a private email that was distributed, who knows?)

The others being Bleeding Heart Libertarians self-published advocacy blog: (both Horwitz and Levy); The Volokh Conspiracy; Gene Callahan blog (on another topic than that discussed at WP:RSN); I personally don't have a problem with what Huebert wrote if properly described as I did today, but that could be added to a WP:RSN if the original complainant still has a problem with it. User:Carolmooredc 16:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, what is your justification for LewRockwell.com (which publizhes dozens of articles promoting AIDS Denialism and creationism) being an RS and Bleeding Hearts Libertarians (like LRC, a group blog, but in this case written by actual academic libertarians who reject WP:Fringe science) being unreliable?

Steeletrap (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just restored the mildly critical content which User:Carolmooredc removed, citing a broken link. I inserted a working link to the archived version of the page, which, as Carolmooredc knows, is easy to find. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] I actually have never been much of a waybackmachine user because couple times tried to find something I couldn't; so don't assume people know what is easy to find. A reminder to me search it anyway. User:Carolmooredc 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Carolmooredc, we all have our limitations. There's no shame in that. However if you do not know how to use waybackmachine, then you should let others do so and in any event do not remove content which is already tagged as needing a fresh link. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeltrap, :Are you saying that she reviewed and sanctioned LewRockwell.com, or are you saying that her not reviewing it constitutes her approving it? North8000 (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying she's never objected to it, despite being exposed for years, through thousands of page views, to pages which cited LRC sources in order to effusively praise LvMI scholars. This is very odd, in light of her strident criticism of the "reliability" of the similarly structured (e.g. group blog whose authors are typically intellectuals with advanced degrees), but far more mainstream/academic, BHL and Volokh conspiracy sources. The critical difference, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, obviously seems to be that the "unreliable" latter sources are critical of an Institution she likes. Steeletrap (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert] I haven't seen you guys protest its use so far in this article, so why should I have needed to justify it here? If you make an argument most/all refs should be removed, I'll have to look at it, obviously. User:Carolmooredc 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

At RS noticeboard

Incidentally, I made this posting (1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and share it here in case any of you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I added three more atWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Three_sources_on_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute_article. User:Carolmooredc 22:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See below. I feel quite strongly that all such referals should be noted here and not on the talk pages of individuals. The K.I.S.S. principle. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit late because forgot to post immediately; did not post to individuals. Usually I'll make it a separate section, but in this cause just stuck it under Steeletrap's. FYI. User:Carolmooredc 22:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that Volokh Conspiracy/Bernstein piece is pretty much dismissed at WP:RSN and is out. We'll have to be vigilant it doesn't sneak back in again. User:Carolmooredc 02:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re: RSN referrals

I see that various sources have been taken to WP:RSN in the last 24 hours or so. Might I suggest that when someone does this in future then they leave a note to that effect on this talk page? I've noticed that some people have been informed of specific RSN referrals on their own talk pages but there is a danger that the notifier may accidentally omit the inform all involved parties and this might be construed as canvassing. The same principle should probably apply to the other "Austrian" articles.

It is probably also worth mentioning that RSN regulars are people, too: if the nature of comments from involved parties at that forum deteriorates into a badgering type of situation then you'll likely find that you will be arguing among yourselves there as well as here. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Notifying individual editors without leaving a big note on the article talk page may count as WP:CANVASSing in some cases. I don't think that's the case here, or even the intent, but it's definitely best not to risk it. MilesMoney (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The current one is a complete misfire. The question posed there was never an issue at the article, and the question at the article has not been posed there, and someone incorrectly implied that it was. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Many people were explicitly questioning the reliability of the source. The source is used to say exactly what I say it is used to say on the RSN. Notability and reliability are separate issues, but the reliability of the source was objected to by Carol. Steeletrap (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the main point is that the RSN question has absolutely NOTHING to do with with the main question on inclusion in this article. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Volokh and not the other three I put up? I was going to put all four up after the weekend, allowing more discussion, but since Steeletrap jumped right on it, I figured I'd put up the other three to make the pattern of dubious edits more clear, thus showing the NPOV issue as well, which is what I assume North8000 referring to. I don't see Volokh used as a source hardly at all, and the couple I saw were for more legal technical issues, not highly negative individual opinion pieces. User:Carolmooredc 22:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

New tags

Where is the discussion for these new tags? MilesMoney (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Just above where we are having a discussion. That editor is part of that discussion. There is no need to start a new section for the discussion. Arzel (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it. Be more specific. This means live discussions, not settled ones. MilesMoney (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There are three sources in that section that has been tagged as possibly unreliable or self-published. Even if we find that all the three sources are reliable sources, there is still the question about whether we are given undue weight to sources that are only borderline notable/reliable; especially since it is a criticism section, where having good sources are extra important. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any arguments explaining why these would be undue. Tags aren't for making an article look bad. They're to direct editors to an ongoing conversation. Not a potential one, or a threatened one, but a conversation that's real. These tags do not appear helpful. MilesMoney (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We are having a "real" discussion. Arzel (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If we were, then one or both of you could point me to it. MilesMoney (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that three (of total five/six) borderline notable/reliable sources may be undue. I often prefer to use borderline sources mostly for uncontroversial facts, and be more careful about using them for negative statements about a subject. And here there are three such borderline sources in the criticism section, making up about half of the section. If it's difficult to find sources which critise LVMI in more ordinary notable sources; it might be a sign that not all the criticism is fully notable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see these sources as borderline. I think it's a sign that the LvMI is largely ignored outside of the libertarian community. MilesMoney (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. If the LvMI is largely ignored outside the libertarian community, then we should take the same approach, instead of resorting to unreliable sources. Unless you are suggesting we use these sources for writing about general history, politics and economics articles, you are showing an inconsistent standard. TFD (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You missed the other part; it's not at all ignored inside the community, so we can use reliable sources who are libertarians. This also helps avoid any claims of POV, because we're not citing those who oppose all forms of libertarianism. MilesMoney (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

People are not reliable sources, published writings are. Otherwise we could use Barnes as a reliable source for holocaust articles. So Skousen's books published by academic publishers (i.e., outside the libertarian community) are reliable sources, while his writings for LvMI etc. are not. TFD (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please refresh my memory: who's Skousen? MilesMoney (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark Skousen, whom we discussed at the Rothbard talk page. Not to be confused with his father, Cleon Skousen, whose books have been re-popularized by Glenn Beck. TFD (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to refresh my memory, but I don't see anything about him on that talk page now. MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is still there on Talk:Murray Rothbard. TFD (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I found it this time. I must have made a typo in the search box or something. Was Skousen the younger actually published by the LvMI or was that a hypothetical. MilesMoney (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Skousen has written articles for the LvMI's journal, but the book presented, Economic Logic, was published by Regnery Publishing (2008), the same publisher used by Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. Some editors objected to his comment, "Rothbard was a highly influential American economist." TFD (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you parse it. Rothbard was an American economist. Rothbard was highly influential. Both true. Putting them together like that almost makes it sound as if her were influential as an economist, and that's much less credible. MilesMoney (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

He does not say that in The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers (M. E. Sharpe, 2009.) The difference is that that book was reviewed by other economists with various views before publication, and it reflects on his standing as an economist rather than his standing as a libertarian writer. TFD (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What does he say in that book? MilesMoney (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See p. 390 of his book.[30] TFD (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There's some good material in here. Key points:

1. While Skousen is far, far from neutral, he's a reliable source on LvMI and Rothbard, particularly in this publication, and there's material that we can use in some form. If anything, Skousen's notable biases mean that any criticism to be found must be taken seriously and cannot be shrugged off as merely the expected whining of Keynesians. Criticism from a fan and ally is honest criticism.
2. There's definitely enough here to say something semi-attributed, along the lines of "conservative economists consider Rothbard's anti-Keynesian, pro-Austrian writings to be powerful".
3. Skousen points out what some of the more knowledgeable editors have mentioned here a few times, which is that Rothbard "made the costly mistake of staying outside the discipline". Rothbard also "refused to join the American Economic Association or write for the academic journals". He even repeats the critique of the two schools he taught at. This allows us to avoid OR.
4. In the summary, Skousen admits that "Rothbard's bold analysis fell on deaf ears outside of his libertarian audience" (where Skousen himself is part of that audience, naturally). This is a beautifully lucid statement. He even explains why, saying, that Rothbard "became embroiled in Libertarian Party politics" at the expense of his academic work.

Given sanctions, it's probably best to discuss this thoroughly before making changes. Still, this is a valuable source. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. MilesMoney (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The point of view of writers is wholly irrelevant to whether or not they are reliable sources. We must however separate the facts expressed and the views of the writer, however I do not think that any of the four points you mention are personal opinions. The term "conservative economists" though may be incorrect, because Friedman could be considered conservative too. Ironically neither Rothbard nor Friedman considered themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions have been applied

Per Wikipedia:ANI#Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute (will put in new link when archvied) to all Austrian economics related articles. I have asked the ruling admin if there is a warning message template including that language or if one can be made to refer people to as a first step, rather than always referring to the ANI thread or going to a noticeboard or the ruling admin. I can see we need to mention this since there is a new increasingly heated debate with charges of Personal attacks. User:Carolmooredc 22:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring under the guise of BLP

This article is under sanctions, so why is this sort of thing being allowed? MilesMoney (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

An ANI has been filed concerning recent edits here

BLPN concerning Bernstein/Volokh

A BLP Noticeboard thread has been posted here [31]. I'm surprised and disappointed that there was no notice of this thread here on the article talk page. Even worse, however, an involved editor has summarily closed the BLPN thread when the the issue currently in dispute appears to be whether use of this reference for certain article statements constitutes a BLP violation. @Srich32977: Please undo your closing of the BLPN thread so that the discussion can continue there. BLP concerns have been cited by several editors and these important issues must be addressed in an orderly way in the appropriate forum. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion is here: Wikipedia:ANI#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute User:Carolmooredc 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

More deletion of criticism

Here we go again. The comment claims WP:SPS and WP:BLP, but as I pointed out on their talk page, neither one fits. BLP does not protect large institutions and SPS makes an exception for a source that is an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".

I urge the editor to revert immediately, but I will not touch the article without a full consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate there is a WP:RSN, a WP:ANI and a WP:BLPN on this and related types of criticism with similar sources. Hopefully we will get a definitive answer in one of these. User:Carolmooredc 19:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

gene-callahan.blogspot.com

So I just got a bullshit templated warning on my talk page for removing this SPS, the templater figures it is not SPS, how is it not? It is a frigging blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in the section above and on your talk page, it turns out that blogs can be reliable sources according to WP:SPS. Callahan is an expert in his field. MilesMoney (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Also up for discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gene_Callahan_personal_blog. Callahan's personal tangential comments not expert analysis. User:Carolmooredc 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Linky please to his expertise on racism and neo confederacy causeswhich is what that says. I note the only people commenting on the RS board are those slugging it out here. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The LvMI is an primarily an economic organization, not a racist or neo-Confederate one, right? So an expert economist is qualified to write about it. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, looking at the diff, no. As he is not writing about economics is he? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gene_Callahan_personal_blog is going strongly against using this. User:Carolmooredc 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary attribution

This edit unnecessarily changes a statement of fact from a RS to an attributed statement. There is no reason to attribute this statement, precisely because it's a RS. MilesMoney (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It has to be attributed, it is the opinions of two authors from the SPLC. Given the SPLC is not what one would call "neutral" WP:BIASED says attribution is needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's incorrect. I've looked at the history of the SPLC as a RS, and there have been others such as yourself who claim it is biased, but that's not what the rulings have said. In particular, we can call an organization a hate group if the SPLC says it's one, as opposed to attributing the hate group status to the SPLC. Attribution is not necessary because this source is not seen as biased. MilesMoney (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Who says it is not biased? Hell, even the way they count "hate groups" is highly suspect. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This reads somewhat like a hit piece

Being someone with little knowledge and no bias on the subject, I just gave it a couple of reads. My 30,000 view gut feel is that this looks partially like a "hit piece". What it looks like is 1/2 the article looks like the basic mundane facts, and the other half looks like the result of a cherry picked search for swipes taken at it by it's political opponents, and using the opponents as "sources". Further, the addressing / intelligent refutation of those swipes by the organization has largely been excluded except for a few vague statements.

And this is a libertarian organization, yet the article seems to be loaded up with attempted painting by critics as it being a Neo-Confederate, racist, anti-immigration, McCarthyist (which is about as opposite to libertarianism as is imaginable) KKK-admiring organization. Or is it really the latter?

Can't we just build an informative article? North8000 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

North, this reads like a rhetorical statement. Can you point to specific content that you deem to be problematic? The Institute has been repeatedly accused of racism, and we are obliged to report this to the extent that it has been covered in RS. Steeletrap (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My comment relates to an overview, not a claim that any one item is terrible. What I am promoting is a substantive accurate article. Opponents accuse their opponents of everything.....that alone that does merit inclusion. (E.G. I don't see substantative coverage or any coverage of Rush Limbaugh's claims in the Democratic party article) For example, if there are substantive claims of racism, let's put them in, plus any rebuttals by the institute to them. .....right now I just see unsubstantiated talking points / swipes by opponents, and real responses to them have been left out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My impression also is that this is unbalanced to the point of resembling a hit piece. One doesn't have to be familiar with a topic to sense a problem. If we can sort out pov-ridden messes such as Narendra Modi then it surely is possible to get some sort of balance here? I know that some people have been trying to do so, so perhaps they need a little more support. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it. The article has long been the object of a tug-of-war with LvMI adherents buffing its positive aspects and LvMI opponents loading it with too much criticism. Other unaffiliated editors have tried to sort the mess. The struggle started in 2005 with the entry of User:DickClarkMises who added positive material. He was joined by User:Nskinsella who had the same aim. They were kept somewhat in check by User2004 aka Will Beback, and they were countered by User:Cberlet who added highly critical text.

The recent spate of changes can be traced to Specifico's first edit to the article in November 2012. Specifico was joined by Steeletrap in August 2013; both editors worked to reduce the respectability of LvMI. This effort was primarily opposed by Srich32977 who appears to be unaffiliated with LvMI or its ideological opponents and simply wishes to make the article be neutral and accurate. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As a dummy on this topic, I really don't know whether or not the Ludwig von Mises Institute is, to some significant extent a Neo-Confederate, racist, anti-immigration, McCarthyist KKK-admiring organization. I'm guessing not. I ask everyone to make sure they aren't wearing a a POV and Wikilawyering hat (and if so, take it off) and put on their editor hats and lets just try to make this an accurate informative article and let the readers use that information to decide what they think instead of working to plant a certain impression. Let's just skip all of the pain/bloodshed//risk/drama and move right on to working towards that (hopefully) inevitable end? North8000 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an important logical distinction between a page "looking bad" for an organization and saying that it is unneutral; claiming it is the latter while (by one's own admission) being a "dummy" without knowledge of the organization is not a productive addition to the discussion. Even supporters of the Mises Institute (see the defense piece written on Lew Rockwell's website) acknowledge it is frequently accused of racism. It is associated with scholars at the white supremacist league of the south. Its chairman was cited in numerous mainstream publications (NYT, WashPo ,Atlantic, the Economist, and so forth) as having authored the virulently racist Ron Paul newsletters, which (for instance) referred to black people as "animals" and ridiculed homosexuals dying from AIDS. When these charges appear in RS, we have to present them, even if they make an organization look "bad". Steeletrap (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. If a person is alive then we err on the side of caution and do not claim things just because news sources say so. Those sources may be willing to risk a libel suit but that doesn't mean that we should. WP:BLP 101. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, these "numerous" sources are all repeats of the same claim by one person, as far as I know. A dubious claim doesn't become more reliable by virtue of others mentioning that the original speaker made said claim. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just gonna point out that there is no libel suit here. That's just a boogeyman being waved around to scare us into scrubbing the article of well-supported criticism. MilesMoney (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out something that really doesn't matter and assuming that I was try to scare people. We have a policy, it is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia and therefore we enforce it. If you don't like that, go get the policy changed: it is not up for discussion here. - Sitush (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's so important a policy that we should never misapply it. Read WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP. You will find that it does not say what you might imagine it does. MilesMoney (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that you are interpreting BLP correctly. The claims cited by Steeletrap were denied by the man in question. Look me up at WP:NOE - quantity does not necessarily equate to quality but, as I've told you previously, you are not dealing with an idiot here: I've bene round these houses. - Sitush (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident that you're mistaken, but you're going to have to take a rain check for now, since your activities on ANI are distracting me. MilesMoney (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here are some examples of agenda driven edits:

• [32] Reference from Texas Tech University re Mises University programs is added.
  • [33] Texas Tech reference removed.
• [34] Further reading item from US Air Force Academy cadet re Mises U program is added.
  • [35] Cadet commentary is removed as "non-notable, non-expert". But compare this to:
    • [36] Where commentary from a law student is added. (Reads as "Mises.org is accused of racism", but thrust of commentary is accusations are unfounded. Either way, source is not RS.) So,
    • [37] Law student commentary is removed (and BRD is opened). And then [38] Law student commentary is restored. The commentary is tagged, but then [39] {{Better source}} tag on law student commentary removed.
• [40] Mises.org event info removed; Compare this with:
  • [41] a Property and Freedom Society edit, by same editor, in which PFS event info is added.

– S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for all of SPECIFICO's edits you cite, but the "primary source" removal one was quite appropriately in light of policy. Primary sources can be used (as in the Hoppe article) when they complement statements of secondary sources on the same subject. We are discouraged from using them when they stand alone without independent secondary support. Steeletrap (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. As so often, it is more complex than that. You really do need to sit down and read these policies through before attempting to cite them. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Primary source material is acceptable RS. "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." But I ask editors to compare the "primary source" diffs in the last bullets. What was the purpose of removing of primary source material conference agenda material in one article? What was the purpose of adding primary source material agenda material in the other article? Similarly, why is an Air Force cadet's material not acceptable but a law student's material acceptable? Further, how come commentary from a graduate student and a self-taught economist presented as opinion from Mises.org scholars? – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a hit piece with too many biased or low quality sources used to repeat charges with little context (like for example mentioning that a lot of charges were made around the time of the Ron Paul newsletter controversy; or mentioning that critics are supporters of government powers which Mises Institute and writers believe should be abolished). There's certainly enough boring material about their day to day work in publishing various material, including from reputable, if not exciting sources, that could be added. Not puffery, just facts. User:Carolmooredc 03:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The lead says that the LvMI was founded by Rockwell, Blumert and Rothbard; the body says that it was founded by Rockwell. Both cannot be correct. Furthermore, both are poorly phrased. Can anyone resolve this contradiction? - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Southern folk

We say of the Wall Street Journal article that "The article goes on "to make an additional point", that "Southerners have always been distrustful of government," making the South a natural home for the organization's libertarian outlook." That was the WSJ writer's opinion and is not in the list of reasons for location that were given by Jeffrey Tucker, a LvMI VP. To be honest, it sounds like regional puffery and I don't see that it has any place in this article. Admittedly, it is the type of regional puffery that I'd more commonly associate with a cub reporters writing for a local rag but it is nonetheless speculative. Oddly, we omit one of the points that is mentioned and might be relevant, ie: Auburn University was one of the few economics depts with Austrian sympathies at the time - the article suggests that, although there was no formal association, this might have affected the location. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Intellectual Property

Someone writes stuff about intellectual property. We have an article dedicated to that person and the content may be relevant there. Academic presses, think-tanks etc regularly publish challenging material and to publish does not imply corporate agreement with the views of an individual affiliate/member/whatever. We should not confuse the individual with the corporate and thus, the "Intellectual Property" section seems to have no place in this article. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You make a lot of good points in these various posts. Unfortunately, when you have to spend hours arguing about whether SPS's negative opinions belong in an article, one can be too burned out to deal with such fine points, not to mention looking for an trying to put more NPOV encyclopedic info in the article. User:Carolmooredc 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mayer

We seem to be giving a lot of attention to the opinions of Christopher Mayer who, according to his cited piece "is an MBA student at the University of Maryland". Why? Where is the evidence that he is representative of anyone but himself? - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mayer is one of the items in the above RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? RfC was opened because of the "off-topic" section. (Also threaded above). – S. Rich (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, added my thoughts there. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute ANI reopened.

The ANI concerning BLP and the subsidiary accusations concerning User:MilesMoney has been reopened. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disgusted by lesbianism

Well that failed verification, the SPLC has not written that at all, "Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism." See the full stop there? See how the author obviously says that Rothbard was "disgusted" by child labour laws? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's clear from the context that he was making a deragotory remark about lesbians, but that was nonetheless a bad misquote (My misinterpretation was rooted in earlier versions of this article). My apologies Steeletrap (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of SPLC criticism re: "Parasites"

This seems pretty important, and of a piece with the fact that -- as its supporters acknowledge (for instance, on Lewrockwell.com -- the Institute is often accused of racism. The SPLC's remark (in the context of its discussion of LvMI) that Rothbard thought of (for example) black people as a "parasitic burden" on society is notable and complements much of the content we see here. Steeletrap (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard never actually said that though, the guy from SPLC did. So that would have to be attributed to him as it is his interpretation. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is already filled with attack sentences from low quality and biased sources promoting the editor's extreme biases which have been documented too many times to remember (luckily I saved dozens of diffs). Please read NPOV about neutral editing. If I wasn't so disgusted, I'd try to put in more neutral material... I just get too disgusted by the massive fight I know I'll face trying to do so. User:Carolmooredc 16:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree Dark, and that's what my edit did (specifically attributed the interpretation to the SPLC). I do encourage you to google the relevant material and Rothbard's views on race; while the view should be attributed to SPLC in the raticle, it's clear that their interpretation is correct. Steeletrap (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Goldberg source

User:Srich32977 deleted Goldberg's discussion of "paleolibertarianism" here (1). Upon reviewing it more carefully (I did not add this originally or read the article), I tend to agree with his edit, but think there is a good-faith argument for the other side. Goldberg may not directly say "mises institute" in his article, but he's citing and agreeing with an article that was specifically referring to the Institute/paleo-libertarians. The relevance of "paleolibertarianism" -- the ideology Goldberg is criticizing -- to the Institute is also well-established by multiple RS> I still think the Goldberg bit should be deleted because because, unlike Horwitz' remarks, they don't contribute to an understanding of the Institute's history. They are redundant and critical rather than descriptive. But I do wish we'd talk these things out before jumping to reversions. I think if we did that, we'd find that there is often a good faith argument on both side of these things. Steeletrap (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The question of Goldberg had been brought up by me in a BRD above, and I commented (again, above) on the removal I performed. (But I do thank you for agreeing that the piece does not contribute to the article.) To restate, because Goldberg's comments do not directly support commentary about Mises.org, as required by WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, I think we can leave the material out. (Note, the bold font emphasis about direct support is in the guideline.) Goldberg's comments might be find in an article about the PLs, but it is not helpful here. – S. Rich (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Storck's review of Ferrara's book

In changes here [42] we see Ferrera's commentary removed and a review of Ferrara's book substituted. But what is Storck saying about Mises.org? He mentions the Mises.org affiliated scholars and "libertarian adherents of so-called Austrian economics". And he says Ferrara is critical of the Austrians vis-a-vis the Catholic church. But nothing in the review directly supports the topic of our article – Mises.org. And he does not say that Ferrera is talking about Mises.org. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

1) It's the "Mises Institute", not "mises.org." 2) Reread the article. The Institute is explicitly mentioned, and scholars advocating the views Ferrara is opposing are identified (by the reviewer) with LvMI

The article may mention the Mises Institute, but that is not enough to show the article directly supports anything about the institute. Woods was "affiliated" with Harvard and Columbia in that he went to school there. Would we put stuff about what he had written in the articles about those schools? Also I note that Gordon's review of T. Woods' book has been added. Neither the Storck or Gordon reviews say anything about Mises.org. I have added a {{SYN}} tag to the paragraph. Perhaps "off-topic" is a better characterization of the paragraph, but I would like to see how these references pertain to the topic of the article. WP is WP:NOTFORUM or a platform for discussion of Ferrara's, Woods', or Gordon's views. (Mises,org is shorthand for Ludwig von Mises Institute.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The views of Institute scholars -- if explicitly identified with the Institute by an RS (as is the case here) -- are perfectly relevant to and can be used in this article. If a Harvard Law Professor argued that one should be able to sell his children to the "highest bidder" or let them starve to death, you can bet controversy would ensue and it would reflect badly upon Harvard. Steeletrap (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Columbia/Harvard analogy you make is specious because Woods is an alumnus of those institutions, but has no ongoing relationship with them of any kind. Not so with LvMI, which publishes most of his work. Steeletrap (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC) NOTE: I'm talking about Woods in relation to the analogy Rich posed. The above statement about letting kids starve/selling them off like slaves derives from Rothbard, not Woodie. Steeletrap (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not only specious, it's tendentious. This should go straight to DR. Srich, is that your story and you're sticking with it? Let's try DR/mediation and save some tail-chasing here. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Are saying I want to take this to DR? Not at all. I'd like some explanation as to how these two book reviews have any pertinence to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. They say these guys publish with LvMI and therefore the reviews represent some criticism of LvMI? This last paragraph in the criticism section is no better than the "Views espoused by LvMI scholars" section. And we can see how the RfC as to that section is going. But I add an analogy and you accuse me of tendentious editing. Amazing! Just answer the editing question – how does the material in these two book reviews directly support anything in the article about LvMI? – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you are seriously asserting that analogy should determine whether that text is in this article? If so, we need DR. In the meantime, I think that editor @Steeletrap: has already responded to you on this. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The analogy was presented simply in an effort to illustrate the weakness in Steeletrap's argument. Simply because a book review says "The author of this book also publishes with LvMI/is an adjunct scholar or fellow with LvMI or whatever", it is not enough to show the book review is discussing the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Again, the question is unanswered – what is there in the book reviews that "criticizes" the Ludwig von Mises Institute? The WP:BURDEN is on Steeletrap to show how the material directly supports the article text. If you think it does, Specifico, why don't you step up and explain how or why it supports the text. But if there is nothing that does so, then inclusion of these book reviews violates policy. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are neither the staff sergeant nor the magistrate here, and your argument was clearly and decisively refuted. Please don't issue orders to other editors. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The main point of the book review is an affirmation of Ferrara's book, the main point of which is to criticize the argument by prominent Mises scholars -- who Ferrara identifies as such -- that Catholicism is compatible with their conception of libertarianism. A book review responding to the views of its scholars, as published by the Institute, is clearly relevant to LvMI. You are resting your case on the number of times the review uses the term "Mises Institute", which is a weak, semantical argument. Why should he have to repeatedly identify the Institute? Once is sufficient, and that burden was met when he noted that the scholars Ferrara criticize are associated with LvMI. The review MUST be about the opinions of the Institute's scholars; it cannot be about the opinions of the Institute, because as previously mentioned the Institute is not a conscious being, but a concept and a building.. Steeletrap (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Mises.org in an article is not enough to satisfy the directly support requirement of CONTEXTMATTERS. The reviews say nothing about Mises.org as an institution. Nothing. This is simply another off-topic bit of stuff. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What in your mind would "say something about the Institute ... as an institution"? Bumps in the night from the furniture? A mission statement? You do of course know that such a statement would not be composed by everyone (all 350 scholars and tens of thousands of dues-paying members) associated with the Institute. I am pretty sure that the scholarly work produced by an Institute's scholars is what defines institutions, not vague "mission statements". When that work is responded to by RS, we can and should use it in the article. (Does anyone know Harvard Law School's mission statement? Is this what distinguishes it as an institution from 3rd or 4th tier schools? Or is it the scholarly work of its professors and job prospects of their grads?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

Note, I have moved the particular paragraph out of the "criticisms" section (as the reviews do not address criticisms of the institution) and put it into the "Views espoused" section. (I'll make additional commentary in the "off-topic" thread.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with Harvard is relevant. The liberal scholar Michael Ignatieff, who was head of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government wrote a book, The Lesser Evil, where he said, "...defeating terror requires violence. It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights...To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations [i.e., torture], targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." That is actually more chilling than Rothbard's views on policing. The works of Ernst Nolte, whom Lipstadt accused of trying to rehabilitate Hitler, are regularly used as sources for books about fascism. Unless a source connects the dots, our attempts to do so are synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful here, because the LvMI is nothing like Harvard. It's not an accredited university that grants tenure. It also doesn't have any pretense of neutrality; it's dedicated towards advocacy. For these reasons, we can distinguish between the crazy stuff that tenured Harvard professors say and what Harvard itself stands behind, but the border between LvMI and its scholars is permeable.

The point is that there's no synthesis involved in writing about the views of LvMI scholars in an article about the LvMI itself. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct ... if the scholars explicitly state that they are writing with their LvMI hat on. Otherwise, they're just another academic writing something. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the scholars don't decide this, the institute does. They each write with their own hat, but the Institute decides who to hire and publish. MilesMoney (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And the scholars have to do what the LvMI says and how it says it? I presume you've seen their contract of employment or something similar? Looks like WP:OR to me. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not run on how things look to you. There is no policy about writing with hats; you made it up just now. It's a hoop you'd like us to jump through, but this isn't a circus and you're not the ringmaster. We have to follow what policy says, not your unique interpretation of it. Please frame your arguments in terms of policy, not your desires. MilesMoney (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The policies would appear to be WP:OR (WP:SYNTH), WP:DUE and WP:V. Probably some more but I tire of dealing with this rubbish very quickly. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sure you know by now that referring to our discussion as rubbish is uncivil. The relevant policy for that is WP:CIVIL, in case you want to look it up. If you're impatient with this discussion, I'm sure nobody would fault you if you took a break to cool off or something. Second, it's not really enough to toss out four acronyms. You need to pick one and show how it actually applies. If you can't, then your argument is not more convincing than my saying [[WP:CIA]], [[WP:FBI]], [[WP:KBG]], and [[WP:TLA]]. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"First of all, I'm sure you know by now that referring to our discussion as rubbish is uncivil" - bollocks. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And you know that your follow-up is likewise uncivil. MilesMoney (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, MilesMoney, if you think that I was breaching the civility policy then you should report me. Don't tell me because I'm not interested. People in these Austrian economics debate seem to cite that civility thing when it suits them but go right ahead and ignore it when it doesn't. I don't pay any attention to what your interpretation of the policy is in such such circumstances because it is a broken record. I suggest that you put you (Miles)Money where your mouth is. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, Sitush, I am obligated to notify you here before I go to any drama page, to show that I'm trying to work with you to encourage you to curb your bad behavior, as opposed to just looking for some excuse to get you blocked or banned. The latter would be acting in bad faith, after all. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No you are not obligated. Wher eon earth did you get that idea from? - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Harvard also "decides who to hire and publish." If secondary sources consider there is anything significant about how they do this, then we can mention it. Otherwise, it is just personal opinions of editors. TFD (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) As I've already explained, Harvard grants tenure. This means that, when they hire someone who seems reasonable and they turn out not to be, tenure gets in the way of firing the nut. None of this applies to LvMI, so when it continues to retain, and publish the work of, a scholar, we must take it as an endorsement. LvMI is an advocacy group, not a university, so it's actually in the primary business of endorsing and promulgating, as opposed to neutrally educating. But I said both of these things already and nothing in your reply addresses these points. It's not very productive for you to ignore points that you disagree with. The collegial thing to do is to either retract your argument or defend it. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Plenty of scholars are employed by plenty of institutes/universities etc but academia is generally one of those areas where censorship by an employer is recognised as an impedance. Scholars tend to get far more freedom of expression than, say, a civil servant. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises institute does not grant tenure to its employees. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) LvMI does not qualify as academia for these purposes, as it is partisan and does not offer tenure; it's not an accredited institution. See above. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't? Since "tenure" just means "you can't dismiss without due cause", it is no more than the standard employment right protected by labour laws in many countries. Do you have a copy of a LvMI contract of employment that exempts the institute from such employment protection legislation? Does it not exist in the US? - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No such protection does not exist in the US. We operate on free market principles here, including in the labor markets. Please end this thread both of you. It's nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I'll end it when there is consensus. Right now, there seems to be none. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignatieff did not have tenure at Harvard, and they re-hired him after he took a stint as a Canadian politician. And the University Press has no obligation to publish anything. If you have to explain how the LvMI should be blamed for doing what prestigious universities do, then that is OR and you need a source. TFD (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To remind you, LvMI is an advocacy group that's not accredited and doesn't offer tenure. Please stop trying to draw false parallels to Harvard: LvMI is nothing like Harvard. As for WP:OR, you have it exactly backward. These false parallels are themselves WP:SYNTH on your part, with the foreseeable consequence of eliminating LvMI material that might not be seen favorably by some. This would be a violation of WP:NPOV, as such selective filtering biases the article. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:IDHT. Unless a source specifically attributes the opinions as being those of the LvMI and/or the publication appears under the LvMI imprint, it has no place here. It isn't about NPOV: any criticisms of any person affiliated with LvMI at any time - past, present or future - can be dealt with in the articles relating to those individuals, assuming that they have an article. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be saying you didn't hear what I said, so I'll helpfully repeat myself: There is no policy supporting your claim that the writings of LvMI scholars must not be mentioned on Ludwig von Mises Institute. There is no policy about hats. There is no policy requiring additional sources to link them. These are not policy, just your preference, and I am bound by the former, not the latter. Also, you're factually mistaken about related issues, such as the nature of tenure. This is likely because you've joined me on articles whose subject matter is unfamiliar to you. MilesMoney (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already named some policies. That I am not particularly knowledgeable about the subject matter is a bonus here, not an impediment. I, for one, cannot be accused of a bias. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You have named policies but they don't actually support these conclusions. If you disagree, you would need to quote relevant parts of the policies so as to show why you think they apply. It's not up to us to guess at your intentions. and we'd likely guess wrong, anyhow.

It's possible, but not a foregone conclusion, that those who know a lot about a subject wind up biased. On the other end, those who know too little are unable to evaluate the basic facts and therefore edit randomly or on whim. The goal would be to learn as much as you can while remaining capable of neutrality. In this matter, ignorance is not bliss, just as knowledge is not a panacea. MilesMoney (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly capable of evaluating policy and I have a reputation here for my ability to evaluate sources etc, so please stop the sniping. Does the item in question criticise the LvMI or the writer? If it does the former but not the latter then WP:DUE applies. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Quotes or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you read it? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." No mention of the LvMI's alleged stance etc in the criticism = no mention in the article because there is no relevant "signficant viewpoint". I could also cite WP:V and WP:BLP etc, as previously mentioned. Give up, Miles: the topic ban discussion is not over yet. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't, which is why I can still comment here. I'm quite familiar with that quote, but there's nothing in it that supports your conclusion. It doesn't say we get to make an artificial distinction between an advocacy group's own scholars and the views of the group. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you are not worried about WP:TE etc then I suppose that is your business - but you are doing it here. The artificial distinction being made is that the opinion of one person is that of the group. We cannot do this. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not worried about your WP:TE; I'm kind of used to it by now. Regardless, you still need to quote policy to support your claim that we cannot report the published views of members of this advocacy group here. You keep offering your interpretation of rules that don't actually say what you want them to say, which is counterproductive. Please offer specific quotes or just retract your objection. In fact, anything short of the former will become indistinguishable over time from the latter. MilesMoney (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the below, Miles won't be discussing any more since he has been banned from his article. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In light of the administrator's final closing of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute, which addresses the usage of blog material, etc. in this article, I think it is proper to close this discussion and remove the Ferrara material. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. It looks like all the junky self-published blogs and other questionable RS are gone. Now just have to be wary of them or other such sneaking back in. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ferrara material isn't a blog though, nor had the current source for it even been added at the time of the attempt to snuff out Miles (which was a consensus formed on diffs unrelated to the BLP issue). Do what you want on this issue, but hasn't your (Rich's) position changed on this? Steeletrap (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not a blog. People should also remember that not all blogs are unreliable etc - some are unreliable, some are just unusable in certain situations. I also think it best not to keep sniping about the MilesMoney ban here: it is done and pointed comments here will achieve nothing except give the appearance of gravedancing or its opposite. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Blog or not, the problem remains. The material does not discuss Mises Institute. – S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor wrote at wp:RS: There should be no shortage of criticism of the Institute to include, but I can't see why we should include a paragraph about an article in an obscure newspaper by an obscure author responding to criticism of his obscure book. We don't just include any old person's opinion at criticism - we look for people with expertise, prominence or influence. User:Neljack 23:10, 28 October 2013 User:Carolmooredc talk 15:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute is an obscure entity. Its scholars have little expertise, prominence or influence. Christopher Ferrara is hardly "any old person" and to refer to him as such is either ignorant or disingenuous. Ferrara had something notable to say about the Misesians in this RS citation. That's why it's in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If Mises is obscure and uninfluential then why is there such drama here trying to criticize them. One would assume that such and obscure and non-infulential group could just as easily be ignored all together. However, that Paradox aside, what Ferrara had to say is not nearly as important as how well known he is. Carol presented from the RS probably the best reason why Ferrara's opinion should not be included. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading the section I must say it is one of the more contrived paragraphs I have seen in some time. Basically Ferrara doesn't like one of LvM arguemnts and the New Oxford Review agree with Ferrara's thesis. The worst part about it is that it is an argument of the hypothetical. Basically it is an argument over who has rights over their children ,the parents or the state, using an hypothetical situation. It is not even really a criticism, it is simply a difference of opinion. The whole section should be removed as undue weight. At the very least it needs to be re-written, as it is currently a logical mess. Arzel (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is very little written about the LvMI and most references to it are in passing. That should guide us to keep the article brief. It does not justify lessening content standards. TFD (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Publications, conferences, activities and awards

This section is entirely sourced to primary references, except for the Kling criticism of the kiddie quiz. I wonder whether this section isn't undue. If any editor knows of secondary RS statements as to the notability or influence of vMI programs described in this section, they should be added. Otherwise, I propose that we delete this section. The activities themselves have already been mentioned above. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are ok for verifying details about the organisations who generated them, provided that the statements are not extravagant claims. Are the facts in dispute? - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

They're not notable. We have no basis to think that these activities should be described in WP. If they are notable, it should be easy to find independent RS discussion of these activities and their significance. We can't just repeat statements from the organization's website without substantiating that the content is significant/encyclopedic. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability guidelines are for the existence or otherwise of articles, not content within them. I agree, however, that we should not include trivia. Why is the section trivial? - Sitush (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, they are not significant, important, worthy of public attention, or suitable encyclopedic content unless such significance is confirmed by secondary RS. Simplest thing would be for any editor who favors this content to find good sourcing for it. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I presume that you are quoting some policy. Which one would that be? - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush on this point. In addition, I reverted SPECIFICO's POV deletion of details about the association with Auburn and an interesting tid bit from the Wall Street Journal. Since SPECIFICO constantly repeats how unnotable LVMI is, why does he remove material that might lend it a tad bit of credibility? The POV feels obvious. Moreover, Wikipedia is information for the public, not a textbook or thesis one has to impress other academics or PhDs with. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal, see "Scientific journals and research papers." and "Academic language" sections. I don't know how many times that has to be explained. Thanks.

Would SPECIFICO be willing to go to Dispute Resolution to discuss various examples of his removal of material which others have found problematic so he can understand why this keeps being an issue? User:Carolmooredc talk 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)