Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 30 August 2013

	Mises Institute was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mises Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mises Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. DickClarkMises (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Predominance of anarchists?

Edits based on these two sources: 1. Mises, Ludwig von (2012). "Mises Supported Laissez Faire Against Anarchism". Committee for Economic Freedom. & 2.Lew Rockwell: Rothbard have been inserted from IP editor 69.171.176.xxx and reverted by User:Fsol. I suggest these proposed edits be discussed here. (If they show up again, I'll do a friendly WP:3R message on the participants' talk pages.) IP editor, the ball is in your court. Please explain your proposed contribution. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I may have acted too quickly in semi-protecting the page, post here if it should be undone and I'll take care of it...or if it needs full protection instead. Dreadstar ☥ 23:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think leave as is. IP has ignored my invitation, but your semi-protect may get his/her attention. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Dreadstar ☥ 01:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I too think this is the best way to handle it. On the subject, as I have said on my talk page, the proposed content seems poorly sourced (a blog entry) and constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV (of course in my opinion).

Also, good faith is hard to assume any longer: -- Fsol (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The following are actual quotes and articles from Mises Institute academics and administrators that confirm without doubt that a strong dominant anarchist current has inundated the organization.

Rockwell (Chairman) in his own words -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89799.html

Doug French (President) in his own words – http://mises.org/daily/4362/

Tom Woods (senior faculty) in his own words –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI

Walter Block (senior faculty) from Mises.org – http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2009/07/29/126-walter-block-is-an-anarchist/

Herman Hoppe (senior faculty) from his own website— http://www.hanshoppe.com/

The list goes on and on – by any objective rational and independent thinking measure the Institute has been overrun by anarchist sentiment.

Reinstate my criticisms or expose[REDACTED] as a discredited and bias organ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettoper (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not have their place on wiki and are not considered reliable sources. -- Fsol (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal opinions DO MATTER when they come from the Chairman, President, and senior faculty of Mises.org and virtually every single one of these ideologues is a self-described anarchist.

END OF STORY -- please stop the vandalism and misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.116 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Add SSL Support

Please add SSL support to this Misplaced Pages article. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncited assertions

There are numerous uncited/unsourced assertions throughout this article. Some have been tagged for a long time and should be deleted if no RS can be found to support them. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I counted 3 cite needed tags. One from this month. The cn tags serve to alert editors to go and look, not to delete the material. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant to say, "Some have been tagged for a long time and should be deleted if no RS can be found to support them." Nothing was deleted. Presumably editors have searched in vain for sources in the time the tag has been up. At some point, we pull the plug on long-tagged content.

The "about" page link works for me but I don't see any text there to support "Rothbard was a prominent influence on the Institute's early activities" so I changed it to conform to the source. If there is text to support the reverted version please cite it, otherwise please undo and restore my conforming version. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the 3 tags, I modified one to resolve the syntax. The other old one is probably unneeded because the paragraph is a summary which says LvMI likes/doesn't like these ideas, which are numerous. While they are generally described, if there are particular topics that LvMI does not opine on, those subjects can be removed. But a review of the article and LvMI's editorial stance should support removal. For example, if LvMI is critical of communism or other isms, the paragraph/sentence/phrase is proper. WRT Rothbard, I looked at the link and restored your edit. – S. Rich (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Appears all are resolved. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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:

. 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)

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. " 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)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class Alabama articles
• WikiProject Alabama articles
• Unassessed organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors