Talk:Mises Institute: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:54, 23 July 2005 editUser2004 (talk \| contribs)23,415 edits →RfC: I don't get paid by the LVMI← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:18, 18 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,884,439 editsm +{{WP Politics\|importance=low\|libertarianism=yes\|libertarianism-importance=High\|American=yes\|American-importance=low}}; cleanupTag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	This group is apparently regarded as ] by some, including the ]. This should be mentioned in the article – not that the neo-confederate discription is indsiputable but rather the fact that some have drawn it. ] 18:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			{{Article history\|action1=GAN
	:Good idea. I've added a sentence to that effect, feel free to modify. Cheers, -] 18:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
			\|action1date=21 March 2007
	::Ummm ... what exactly is meant by a "neo-confederate group"? The initial principals of the Mises Institute were Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, both of whom were from the northeast, rather than the south. The article on ] describes the controversial nature of this term in some detail. What are the criteria for including quotations where one group uses an epithet to describe another? - ]] 18:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			\|action1result=not listed
			\|action1oldid=116834384
			\|currentstatus=FGAN
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=low\|libertarianism=yes\|libertarianism-importance=High\|American=yes\|American-importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Alabama}}
			{{WikiProject Organizations\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=Mid}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 7
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			\|algo = old(60d)
			\|archive = Talk:Mises Institute/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Annual readership}}
			{{Connected contributor
			\| User1 = DickClarkMises \| U1-EH = yes \| U1-declared = yes
			\| User2 = Nskinsella \| U2-EH = yes \| U2-declared = yes}}

			== SPLC ==
	:::I believe it may be due more to ] and others. . (Also search on "mises" in the SPLC site to find many references). I think that it is NPOV to report that a notable institute has categorized a group in such a way. We are not endorsing that categorization, only reporting it factually. If we can find a denial from Mises, we should include that too. Cheers, -] 20:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

			The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a neutral source, it is an ideological adversary of libertarians and Mises Institute. Should every entry about an ideological organization include criticism by opponents? Is this a Misplaced Pages custom? ] (]) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
	I'm not an expert-God knows-but what is a "faculty connection?" Is that an accepted term within academia to indicate that a particular individual is involved with a group whose name strikes fear into the heart of the affirmative action officer? If it is, then ignore my comment. If not, elaborate on the phrase and say that (_some_) Misesians are proud supporters of Southern heritage. ] 02:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			::Is there anyone claiming the SPLC is biased other than those the SPLC has pointed out the shortcomings of? In other words: are you claiming that the SPLC has a realistic or unrealistic lack of support for the Mises Institute? (Compare "NASA is not a neutral source, it is an ideological adversary of flat earthers.")] (]) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
	Willmcw and Nat--I agree with both of you--the SPLC is a well known organization and their smears should be exposed to the light of day. Let Wikipedians decide for themselves the merit of SPLC and their accusations. ] 02:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

			:::Also, I removed the retort from Lew. There's no source given to illustrate why the retort was notable (it's just his personal writings), and it's just an appeal to emotion and audacity instead of anything actually answering the SPLC reports claims. It doesn't make sense to give the majority of the paragraph to that, unless we're going to expound on why the SPLC labeled them that way in the first place.] (]) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
	== Unnamed "Opponents" ==

			In any event, the SPLC is a participant rather than a source. IMO the whole section should go, but coverage of their response as such to the SPLC is certainly appropriate. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
	*''Opponents of this kind of charge view it as merely an excess of ] run amok, and frequently note that such so-called politically-correct and liberal types often excuse or whitewash--hypocritically, some say--the genocides and mass murders committed during the twentieth century by governments they would otherwise view as benevolent. Such opponents note that charges of ] and the like fly in the face of the tremendous amount of anti-socialist and anti-Fascist writing on the Institute's website and demonstrated in their programs, e.g. seminars such as the .''
			::::{{re\|North8000}} What do you mean by "participant"? They are an independent source which reported on the subject; reporting is not the same as participation. –] ] 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
	Who are these "opponents" and where have they expressed their views? Thanks, -] 01:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
			:::::By "participant" I meant that they are a political organization giving their opinion or talking points. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
	**Give me a few hours, I'll get back to it. ] 01:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
			::::::The SPLC is a third party, independent organization with a strong track record of impartial reliability. It's given 1.2 lines of the paragraph, with "Intelligence Report" in scarequotes, and its main argument is summarized in a few words. Lew Rockwell, the primary source with an obvious lack of impartiality, writing in a personal tract, is given 4 lines in which he makes arguments from incredulity and appeals to emotion.
			:::::::That is far from a balanced PoV. That is a clear concession to the puffery of the article's topic.
			:::::::There are several other places ("despite the historical Mises seems have sympathized to some conservative or right-wing cultural views") where the institute's claims are not presented ''as their claims'', but as the encyclopedia's PoV.
			:::::::It is fair for the wiki to record the article topic's response to criticisms. It is ''not'' fair for the wiki to, as it has done here, presume that the article topic is automatically in the right and present the article as such. The article should be from the consensus point of view of independent parties, as we do everywhere else, not the point of view of a single organization. As it is now, the article reads as a barely concerned self-written piece.<small>] ]</small> 15:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
			It's fair to point out that sources that Misplaced Pages deem reliable (e.g., the Washington Post) have pointed out that the SPLC is unreliable. These sources accuse the organization of having a history of charging individuals with false accusations. For example:
			https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html
			By Misplaced Pages's own standards, the SPLC cannot be taken as a reliable or neutral source.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
			:Please note the "opinion" part: that's only the personal opinion of columnist Thiessen. —]] – 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
			:SPLC is widely cited off-wiki as an authority. Its biases are open and known. We always ] its views, but there's no reason to exclude them as they are the single most cited source for this kind of analysis. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

			::I am no fan of the SPLC (they should '''never'' be used as a source for whether an organization is a hate group or and individual is part of a hate group; they have been caught lying about that far too many times) but they are otherwise widely recognized by reliable sources as an authority, and there is zero reason to remove what they say in this case as long as it is attributed. --] (]) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
	***Adding an entry in your blog so that you can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia. -] 22:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
	::::Who knew? I can find other sources, trust me!! haev you ever read Sowell's book about liberals and their intentions? Wikismooches, ] 22:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

			:::{{u\|Guy Macon}}, No, they have not been caught "lying". They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally. But reliable independent secondary sources routinely quote them, and thus so do we, but only with attribution. A review of the history of the individuals involved does make it rather obvious why SPLC listed them. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
	***So, the fact that some McCarthyite institution wants to call the LvMI "neo-confederate" with negative connotations (note: I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with neo-conderatism) means that it should be included in an encyclopedia entry on the LvMI? Just becuase some other institution says this? So what. These kinds of smear campaigns shouldn't be in encylopedias. Why not also include all of the things said by numerous other institutions about the LvMI? And why not include responses, so what the article can go on and on about who views who as what. A statement of what the LvMI argues for is plenty enough. -- ]
	:::*Dr. Heinrich has a good point. Palmer's blog is merely a blog. So I will delete references to him too, per Willmcw's policy of not using blogs as the source. ] 01:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
	::::*My bad, Palmer is not listed here, but on the ] site. I'll implement Willmcw's standards posthaste. ] 01:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

			:::They are unreliable on whether a hate group exists or on who is a member of a hate group. In other areas they are still widely cited by reliable sources and can be used with attribution. See ], where the strong consensus was that the SPLC is no longer reliable as the arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group.
	***Williamcw: You said, "Adding an entry in your blog so that you can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia." But, apparently, referring to baseless smears against libertarians (Hoppe) by someone (Palmer) who's made it an ongoing policy to smear this person, is the way to write an encylopedia? Encyclopedia articles should not be yet another place where campaigns of character-assasination are waged. And that holds for individuals and institutions. -- ]
	****Any notable criticisms should be included. The SPLC, love it or hate it, is a notable institution. If the Mises Institute has a response then we should include that too. -] 02:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
	::::*Williamcw: This is not a notable criticism. As for the SPLC being "notable", I've never heard of them before, and their web-traffic is smaller than that of Mises.org and LewRockwell.org by 2 orders of magnitude. Hardly seems significant to me. But accepting that they are, I stand by my assertion that Encyclopedias shouldn't be places where mud is thrown. Absent a response to this rubbish, it is a denigration to the LvMI; it shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged, simply because no-one there has gotten around to responding to it.

			::::Re: "They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally", please show your evidence that the SPLC ever retracted their false claim that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists. They have never issued a correction or in any way admitted that they were wrong, despite multiple print and TV news sources asking them about the claim.
	:::::Have we established that being a "neo-Confederate" is a bad thing? If so, why? Regarding the SPLC, it is widely known even if you haven't heard of them. In any case, they aren't the only ones making the claim. that the Mises Institute is "neo-Confederate". So, it's sourced information. Add a rebuttal from Mises if there is one. Cheers, -] 05:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

			::::See this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:
	::::::*Williamcw: I don't agree that neo-Confederate is necessarily a bad thing. I'm a strong supporter of secession, and that includes the South. What I think is bad thing is the way in which SPLC uses the term "neo-Confederate", with negative connotations. In their view, neo-Confederate = racist. Most likely, in the minds of many people, the same thing is true. This is because the South had slaves. But the LvMI does not support enslaving anyone. What some there support is the South's secession. And that's not a complete generalization, as Tibor Machan is affiliated with the LvMI and argued against Southern secession. In any event, I think the rebuttal offered by Kinsella is fine.

			::::Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the ] website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.
	*''..collectivism, Fascism and related views often alleged as being connected with neo-confederate groups..''
	According to whom are these views often alleged to be connected to neo-confederate groups? As far as I know, the opposite is true. -] 05:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
	:*Haven't you seen how these PC idiots operate? They lump it all together. If you look at them cross-eyed, you're an anti-semite. ] 06:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

			::::One small problem: '''The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed.''' They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed.
	== Raimondo ==

			::::The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong.
	I like Raimondo, but not sure it's accurate to list his as "associated" w/ the Institute. Do you have any objective evidence for this? He may be listed as adjunct scholar, I don't know, but hundreds of people are, so that should not be enough. ] 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
	:He's not listed on the site as having any position or even as adjunct scholar. I think they've published some things he's written--but then they've published things by hundreds of people. ] 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

			::::Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, the SPLC silently changed the claim to say that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll" to support that claim.
	== table of contents ==

			::::The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year, ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that falsely claims that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level
	Willmcw, how do you get the page to display that Table of Contents? I don't understand the code for this. ] 17:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

			::::When you make a claim without a shred of evidence other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, and ''then'' change the claim to another false claim, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --] (]) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
	:It's automatic when you create headings. -] 18:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

			== Debate on the Reliable Source Noticeboard concerning Mises ==
	== David Duke ==

			Following ], I am notifying all viewers of this talk page that there is currently a discussion ]. ] (]) 23:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
	Willmcw, your casual listing of David Duke as another opponent of SPLC is clearly NPOV. Duke is a universally reviled racist. It is gratuitous to add his critique of SPLC. He has no credibility so to add him as a redundant critique of SPLC serves to equate Duke with other critics of SPLC, such as Horowitz. Thereby serving to try to denude all the critiques of SPLC of any force. Thereby trying to subtly bolster SPLC's critique of Mises Institute. Adding Duke to the list of critics of SPLC does nothing constructive or useful, and snidely impugns the other critics of SPLC. It is definitely not NPOV.

			== SPLC IS NOT NEUTRAL ==
	What you are doing here would be akin to this: "Exxon is criticized by the Sierra Club, an environmentalist group. Adolf Hitler was also an environmtalist."

			SPLC is not neutral source, you have to share only neutral sources, otherwise you can find a denounce for defamation. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
	Or: "Phillip Morris defends cigarrette smoking as not as harmful as claimed, and as the adult's right. The anti-smoking alliance accuses Phillip Morris of downplaying the risks of smoking. Adolf Hitler, another opponent of smoking, also accused the tobacco companies of immoral profitteering." Would such a comment be appropriate in a neutral encyclopedia?? ] 20:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

			:SPLC is an accepted source for facts such as this. Sources are not required to be neutral. See ].
	::Duke is certainly better known than Myles Kantor. Horowitz has a pretty bad reputation in some circles too. Since the point of the rebuttal section seems to be to impugn the SPLC in general (rather than addressing the specific isue of the "neo-confederate" label), any general criticism seems appropriate. Maybe it'd be better to drop the whole section and just deal with the "neo-confederate" matter directly? -] 21:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
			:Your "you can find a denounce" statement appears to be a violation of ]. ] (]) 15:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::What you are attempting to do has the following effect: SPLC is allowed to be described as accusing the Mises Inst of being neo-confederate and racist; while any rebuttal of SPLC's credibility is diluted by making them all look like racist loons. This is completely inappropraite and unacceptable, and NPOV IMHO. Given Duke's abysmal reputation as an avowed racist--he was head of the KKK for God's sake--it is hardly a "rebuttal" to trot him out as being against you. It is worse than a rebuttal. There is no need to mention Duke here. Horowitz is fairly mainstream and has credibility. Duke does not. This is utterly ridiculous. IMHO. ] 21:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
			::Adding to what Binksternet wrote, please see ]. ] (]) 15:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

			== Critics to the organization or to persons? ==
	:::I concur that this Duke quote is clearly of little value in the Mises Institute article. In fact, virtually all of this corollary criticism seems to be better suited for the SPLC article. Let's keep the criticism if people think that it is notable enough, but let's not get into a denouement of the SPLC controversy here. ] 21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

			The section of Criticism has a paragraph that I see inaproppiate, because the content is not really criticism to the institution (that it is an independent academic organization, not a political proselitism organization) but to persons that have done a kind of activism or expressing opinions in their activism outside their institutional functions. As those lines are not specific criticism to the labor of the institution, I think this paragraph needs to be erased. If there are criticism to persons in particular those criticism have to been in the respective articles.
	:::The denouncement of the SPLC was initiated to provide balance. Leaving the SPLC's criticism (which is completely wrong in the context that they use it, which is that the LvMI is like the League of the South, an organization the SPLC alleges to be racist. Putting that up there without a rebuttal is not neutral at all. For an article to be neutral means presenting both sides of an argument. It seems like some people here think that just by saying, "some have criticized", etc, they avoid issues of non-neutrality. Not true. Such phraseology allows the author to claim to be neutral, or at least prevents knowing definitively what the author thinks. However, it still does not guarantee a neutral article. Would the article be neutral if it listed every nutty criticsm of the LvMI, but no rebuttal?

			"The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the ] and ] cultural views of some of its leading figures, on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaigns of ].{{Cite web\|last1=Sanchez\|first1=Julian\|last2=Weigel\|first2=David\|date=2008-01-16\|title=Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?\|url=https://reason.com/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/\|access-date=2020-12-28\|website=Reason.com\|language=en-US}} {{Cite news\|last=Sheffield\|first=Matthew\|title=Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians.\|language=en-US\|work=Washington Post\|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/where-did-donald-trump-get-his-racialized-rhetoric-from-libertarians/\|access-date=2020-12-28\|issn=0190-8286}}{{Cite news\|last1=Rutenberg\|first1=Jim\|last2=Kovaleski\|first2=Serge F.\|date=2011-12-26\|title=Paul Disowns Extremists' Views but Doesn't Disavow the Support (Published 2011)\|language=en-US\|work=The New York Times\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html\|access-date=2020-12-28\|issn=0362-4331}}"
	I concur with Kinsella's criticism of adding a critique of the SPLC from a well-reviled racist. It is not neutral at all. Putting in a "rebuttal" has to effect of saying that the LvMI is in some way affiliated with the KKK. Absurd tripe. -- ]

			--] (]) 01:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

			:Sheffield's essay characterizes the institute itself, not just the leading figures. ] (]) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
	:I concur completely with Stephen Kinsella on this one. Willmcw's additions/restorations of Duke material serves a clear political purpose of seeking to discredit and/or reduce the Horowitz response. Citing David Duke is transparent in that it serves no other informational purpose to this article than to diminish a more mainstream critique of SPLC, thus seemingly propping up SPLC's viewpoint over others (which could also be said of including the SPLC material in the first place). That's an NPOV violation by its very definition as the NPOV policy can also apply to what content is included as well as the wording of that content. It's also getting WAY off topic from this article (a problem that also seems to be recurring in the wikipedia additions of the main proponent of the Duke section, who should accordingly review and familiarize himself with all wikipedia NPOV related policies and guidelines in order to prevent his repetition of this violation in the future). A simple sentence or two qualifying the fact that SPLC's labelling of groups is controversial in its own right is appropriate for this article, but a multi-paragraph analysis of SPLC containing quotations of a figure of infamy that are seemingly juxtaposed next to others for the purpose of discrediting is not. ] 21:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

			::Let's check it. Anyway that article is from 2008, let's work just on what it say. But, Trump presidential campaign was from 2016, and there is not an institutional support/communicate of it. That could be inmediatly erased.--] (]) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
	== RfC ==

			:::Sheffield's essay is from 2016. ] (]) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
	It is stated in entry that a group (Southern Poverty Law Center--SPLC) accuses the subject group (Mises Institute) of racism. The entry also notes that SPLC is accused by some groups of making exaggerated or politically motivated claims of racism. A user then adds a comment that David Duke, the white supremacist, also accuses SPLC of exaggerated claims of racism. Is this comment appropriate and NPOV? For more see ].

			Just wanted to post this here because it took a little while to track down. SPLC is citied as quoting Steve Horwitz's Fist in Glove quote. He is Horwitz quoting it himself. https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Huh? Where does the SPLC accuse the LVMI of racism? -] 21:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
	::SPLC lists the League of the South on its "hate groups" page . Then SPLC claims:

			== Relevance of some material ==
	:::In the past, Rockwell has praised the electoral success of European neofascists like Joerg Haider in Austria and Christoph Blocher in Switzerland.

			The Current Activities section has a long paragraph on the German Mises Institute, but how is that relevant to the subject one in Alabama? Similarly, the last sentence in the History section mentions that there were "about 30" institutes with the same name, but there is no information about the connection, affiliation or other form of association with the American-based one. The article appears to imply that there is no direct connection. Perhaps that paragraph and sentence ought to be placed in a separate "Similarly named organizations" section.
	:::Both Rockwell and institute research director Jeffrey Tucker are listed on the racist League of the South's Web page as founding members — and both men deny their membership. Tucker has written for League publications, and many League members have taught at the institute's seminars and given presentations at its conferences.

			The two paragraphs that mention neo-Confederate positions or themes, only identify Rockwell, Rothbard and Hoppe by name, otherwise using the vague "Figures at the Mises Institute". The Hague, Beirich and Sebesta book ''Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction'' does give the names: ] (present at the ''only'' conference mentioning secession in its title and at a second conference on the costs of war), ], and ] (according to the book, Fleming and Francis spoke at the second conference). A fourth person, ] is also identified as "connected" to the institute. Wilson does have an author page at mises.org, but only four articles: two from 1995 and two from 1999 (republished in 2009). Fleming does not seem to have a page at mises.org, but he did present "Did the South Have to Fight?" at the 1994 Costs of War conference. Francis does have an author page (he died in 2005), with the single item being a recording of his presentation at that conference, "Classical Republicanism and the Right to Bear Arms". Livingston also does not seem to have a page in the current mises.org. The point is that these "figures" were not directly associated with the Mises Institute, they just spoke or presented papers at one or two conferences some thirty years ago. It would be more relevant if current material from Rockwell or Thomas DiLorenzo (current Institute president) were quoted or shown to have neo-Confederate tendencies. ] (]) 02:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
	::This obviously insinutates Rockwell is racist and in cahoots with "hate" groups. Can anyone honestly deny that this is what is being alleged? You people here are so concernend about copyright violations. How abuot outright libel? A false charge of racism is probably per se libel; re-publishing a libelous comment is also an act of libel. At the very least it is only good manners to be very careful before contributiong to or perpetuating the accusation that someone is racist. ] 21:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	::: I am very surprised, but SPLC does indeed accuse LVMI and Rockwell of racism. This charge is reported accurately in the article, along with some rebuttals. What's the problem? Misplaced Pages is not committing libel against LVMI. It is never libelous to accurately report what someone else said. Misplaced Pages cannot be held legally responsible for reporting someone else's claims - this amounts to an infringement on the site's right to free speech. ] 21:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
	::::Do you think it's appropriate, and NPOV, to accompany the David Horowitz critique of SPLC with a similar critique by David Duke? Does it serve any purpose but to try to equate Horowitz (and thus all the critiques of SPLC) with the much-reviled David Duke? I believe it converts a rebuttal into a further critique. ] 21:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
	:::If SPLC's smear of Rockwell and Mises Institute is to be put in the entry, it is appropriate to include reference to criticisms of SPLC's bias and credibility. It is not appropriate or necessary to accompany these criticisms with one by a known racist, in an attempt to weaken the other criticisms of SPLC. That is not NPOV; it is a result of a transparent agenda to bias the article against Mises Institute and in favor of its critics. ] 21:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	Are we talking about the LVMI or the ]? Yes, the SPLC calls LOTS a racist hate group. But that is a matter for other articles. The SPLC does not the LVMI either racist or a hate group, that I know of. Those are all strawmen arguements that get away from the simple issue of the SPLC's description of the LVMI as "neo-Confederate". -] 21:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

	:Ludwig von Mises, for whom the Ludwig von Mises Institute is named, was a critic of "economic planning". ] economics was essentially an American form of "economic planning". Hence von Mises is cited as a critic of New Deal and subsequent ] government programs. The evidence suggest that the von Mises Institute published criticism of writings that used SPLC materials here , with this quote,
	::''"The Information Age also reveals a misleading use of sources. Sometimes, as Steve Fuller (1999, p. 162) of the University of Durham points out, Castells marshals aggregate data without commenting on the shortcomings of comparing summary statistics across nations. In other cases, he accepts the reports of such highly politicized organizations as the Southern Poverty Law Center and treats their statistics as valid without explaining the center’s criteria of classification. This misleads the uncritical reader into accepting methodological artifacts as statistical fact supporting what is a questionable interpretation. And, third, the books offer examples of poor argumentation—usually when the aggregate statistics fail to support Castells’s interpretation. For instance, in volume 2, Castells describes the rise of militia movements and attempts to show (based upon unquestioned Southern Poverty Law Center data) their spread across America. When even those figures do not support his argument, he then throws in the following: “If we consider the Christian Coalition to be a part of the movement, then Patriots are present in the suburbs of most large metropolitan areas” (vol. 2, p. 95). Castells creates—out of thin air and without scholarly proof—a presumed, if not desired similarity and treats it as accepted fact. This sleight of hand allows him to magically pull rabbits out of a hat that isn’t even a hat."''
	:so the SPLC retaliated by finding references to Abraham Lincoln and ] in LvMI publications and put them on their hate group list. ] 21:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	:Willmcw wrote:
	::"Are we talking about the LVMI or the ]? Yes, the SPLC calls LOTS a racist hate group. But that is a matter for other articles. The SPLC does not the LVMI either racist or a hate group, that I know of. Those are all strawmen arguements that get away from the simple issue of the SPLC's description of the LVMI as "neo-Confederate"."
	:Yes, this is indeed beside the point. But if you are going to insist in including the mention that SPLC accuses Mises of being Neo-Confederate, and if it is true that SPLC classifies LOS as being a "hate group" because it is Neo-Confederate, and calls LOS racist, and states that the employees of Mises Inst are founders of and associated with the "racist", "hate-group" LOS, it is very very clear that SPLC is insinuating Mises INst is racist and affiliated, at least, w/ hate groups. Given this, it is relevant to quote critics of SPLC like David Horowitz, so that SPLC's smears of Mises INst are not simply unanswered. Now you seem to be insisting that if the smears of Mises are answered, the answers must be associated some loathesome character, David Duke. This is unfair, and inappropraite. Once Horowitz--a fairly reputable source, arguably at least on the same level of respectability as SPLC, at least--is cited as challenging SPLC's racist charges as being often non-credible, that is sufficient. It is pointless to add yet another source, and one who is an obvious, despised and widely revilesd racist; it strongly implies Horowitz is just another racist like Duke, and thus the criticisms of SPLC should be disregarded. It is not NPOV. The Duke comment shoudl be removed. ] 21:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	::I agree that David Duke's comment is irrelevant. Duke does not mention LVMI and has nothing to do with the dispute, except that he has criticized the SPLC (as many racists do). ] 22:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

	:::All of these attacks on the SPLC are what my friend ] calls "ad hominem" attacks and generally removes from articles. Your logic about the insinuation is original research. The SPLC calls some groups "hate groups" and not others. Duke is as notable critic of the SPLC as Horowitz. How about we drop them both? At least there is some connection between Kantor and the LVMI. -] 22:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
	::::Willmcw: this is ridiculous. Let's look at this honestly. There is an entry about MI. Someone notes that SPLC accuses MI of "neo-confederacy", by which it means racism and hate-mongering. It is perfectly reasonable to note, in this context, that the SPLC has been criticized for its "racist" attacks on others. This helps to make for a balanced article. The reader sees that there is a critic of the subject; but that the critic has its own critics. There is no reason whatsoever to insist that the criticism must come from the victim, or by someone "connected" to them. On the other hand, to insist on adding the criticsim of a known racist is purely politically motived. You should not use Wiki to make a ]. If the SPLC smear of MI is to be retained, the Horowitz critique should be retained; and the Duke comment should not. It is ridiculous to include a known, universally reviled racist to pretend to defend someone from charges of racism, in an effort to give balance to the article. I am going to fix it. Please do not further politicize this. ] 01:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
	::::::First show me where the SPLC calls the LVMI "racist" or "hate-mongering". Anyway, I'm fine with the rebuttal from a LVMI writer, Kantor. -] 01:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
	:::::::I have already done so. I will repeat it--see below. You may be fine with Kantor, but you have given no reasaon to restricting comments on SPLC from MI itself. That's just an arbitrary rule. So, here is how SPLC calls LVMI racist or hatemongering. First, SPLC lists the League of the South on its "hate groups" page . And it calls LOS racist, explicitly.

	:::::::Then SPLC claims:

	::::::::Both Rockwell and institute research director Jeffrey Tucker are listed on the racist League of the South's Web page as founding members — and both men deny their membership. Tucker has written for League publications, and many League members have taught at the institute's seminars and given presentations at its conferences.

	:::::::This obviously insinutates Rockwell is racist and in cahoots with "hate" groups. How can you deny this with a straight face? Anyway, what '''exactly''' is your point, or argument? Are you saying that there is no excuse to put up the Horowitz/Kantor critiques of SPLC, unless we first establish some kind of charges by SPLC of MI being racist? What is your point, exactly? Ours is clear. If you post a critique of MI, it's balanced to post criticisms of the critic. But not David Duke, which is a purely politicized move. We should just try to be fair and objective. No? ] 01:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
	:::::::::If you mean "insinuate" then say, "insinuate". They certainly don't "call" LVMI "racist" directly. Since the issue is not whether they are called "racist" or not, quotes about racism are irrelevant. If, for whatever reason, these quotes are relevant, then Duke, a noted commentator on racism, is a valid expert. Duke is no more political than Horowitz. If one belongs then so does hte other. Please don't censor. Thanks, -] 02:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
	::::::::::I disagree, strongly. I believe your motives here are transparent, just as they were on the IP page where you wanted to insist on the copyright comment. This is no place for hidden agendi. ] 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It's no place for any agendas. I'd be hard to argue that faculty and staff of the LVMI don't have a agenda regarding their institution. -] 02:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

	::::Willmcw: Non-sense. Your putting Duke in there was an unfair attempt to insinuate that those who defend the LvMI are somehow like Duke, a racist. You added that they've accused the LvMI of being neo-confederate (a term they use with racist connotations). Quoting someone who criticizes their labelling of various groups as neo-confederate or racist is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be saying, "well, you can't believe them, they beat their wives" or something like that, completely irrelevant to the allegation being made. The quote from Horowitz calls into question the legitimacy of claims by the SPLC that organizations are neo-confederate (by which they mean, with thin veil, racist). --] 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	::::I did not realize that Horowitz has no connection to LVMI. I agree, we should remove all irrelevant attacks on the SPLC. If LVMI has officially responded to SPLC it should be covered, but those with no connection to this dispute do not belong in the article. I also support removing the paragraph about how LVMI supports "individualism". It's POV original research to make this claim without a citation. ] 22:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

	:::::Rhobite: Simply because the LvMI hasn't responded to the insinuations of the SPLC doesn't mean the SPLC's junk should go unchallenged. It is an outright smear, and without a something countering it, it destroys the article's neutrality. Either you have the criticism and a rebuttal, or you have neither. But having a criticism which insinuates racism -- especially for anyone who looks for the SPLC's list of "bad organizations" and discovers what they say about them -- is decidedly non-neutral. Furthermore, it is not "POV" to claim that the LvMI supports individualism without providing a reference. Do we have to have a reference for <EM>every</EM> thing we describe them as? That's simply what they support. Go to their home page, they have an article in their recent articles on individualism. --] 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	::::::Hey, I think I remember you from K5. Same guy? I was CaptainSuperBoy back then. Silly nickname. Welcome to Misplaced Pages.. I agree that it would be unfortunate if SPLC's allegations were listed here unchallenged. However here at Misplaced Pages we are limited to using verifiable information from other sources. We can't craft our own arguments and insert them into articles. Luckily Kantor's response is relevant to LvMI, and it should definitely stay. We should remove the other responses from David Duke, Horowitz, and our own unsourced bit about individualism. It may be well-known that LvMI supports individualism and opposes collectivism, but the article makes an implied argument: Because of this support for individualism, LvMI is against segregation and racist policy. Unless someone outside Misplaced Pages has made this argument, it is our own ]. ] 23:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

	:::::::Yea, same guy from K5. I got tired of K5's non-responsiveness, and of the lack of control of your own journals. Some socialist nutcase who thought he knew something about economics kept on writing idiotic comments in my journal, so I moved to LiveJournal (where you can delete idiots).

	:::::::Regarding the comments on collectivism/individualism, there isn't an implied argument. Those are facts about the LvMI. The "argument" comes in the readers own mind: anyone who visits the links to the LvMI will realize that it is radically pro-freedom, pro-private-property, anti-State, and anti-fascist/communist. This destroys the credibility of the claims by the SPLC. The descriptions of the LvMI used in the article are easily verifiable on LvMI; I could provide a reference (actually, many references) for each of them; but if every descriptive word has to have a reference, well, I think that's silly.

	::::::::Concession: Given that way that factual information is presented, it may appear to be an argument. For the purposes of appearances, I've modified the same sentence and moved it to the first section discussing the LvMI.

	:::::::I still think that the quotes by Horowitz and others calling into question the legitimacy of the SPLC's criticisms of neo-confedericism are relevant. Perhaps there need not be more than one or two, though --] 23:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	This page could benefit from the information about the LvMI's mission and history in Mises.org's --] 23:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

	:I remember that you're familiar with the LvMI's work. It would be great if you could help expand this article. ] 23:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

	:: I'd be glad to. It's just a matter of trying to divide it up into the major topics covered, and explain the LvMI's discussion on them clearly.

	Over-hyperlinking? Maybe this is a general question, but it seems like this page (along with alot of others) are over-linked to other Wiki articles. It seems to me that things having nothing to do with the LvMI (like 1995 and vice-president) should not be hyperlinked. I realize the reason for this is probably to go along with the way the mind things (e.g., you see one thing, then you scatter off on different paths), but I think it is detrimental to the quality of the article visually, and even functionally (when skimming for links). Most people looking at the article are interested in LvMI-related stuff. If "1995" happens to conjure up their interest, the "search" box is to the left of the article.

Latest revision as of 22:18, 18 November 2024

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.

Article policies

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

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

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 is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American / Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal 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.

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 Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected 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.
Nskinsella (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a neutral source, it is an ideological adversary of libertarians and Mises Institute. Should every entry about an ideological organization include criticism by opponents? Is this a Misplaced Pages custom? Nicmart (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyone claiming the SPLC is biased other than those the SPLC has pointed out the shortcomings of? In other words: are you claiming that the SPLC has a realistic or unrealistic lack of support for the Mises Institute? (Compare "NASA is not a neutral source, it is an ideological adversary of flat earthers.")198.135.124.107 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, I removed the retort from Lew. There's no source given to illustrate why the retort was notable (it's just his personal writings), and it's just an appeal to emotion and audacity instead of anything actually answering the SPLC reports claims. It doesn't make sense to give the majority of the paragraph to that, unless we're going to expound on why the SPLC labeled them that way in the first place.198.135.124.107 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In any event, the SPLC is a participant rather than a source. IMO the whole section should go, but coverage of their response as such to the SPLC is certainly appropriate. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: What do you mean by "participant"? They are an independent source which reported on the subject; reporting is not the same as participation. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

By "participant" I meant that they are a political organization giving their opinion or talking points. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is a third party, independent organization with a strong track record of impartial reliability. It's given 1.2 lines of the paragraph, with "Intelligence Report" in scarequotes, and its main argument is summarized in a few words. Lew Rockwell, the primary source with an obvious lack of impartiality, writing in a personal tract, is given 4 lines in which he makes arguments from incredulity and appeals to emotion.

That is far from a balanced PoV. That is a clear concession to the puffery of the article's topic.

There are several other places ("despite the historical Mises seems have sympathized to some conservative or right-wing cultural views") where the institute's claims are not presented as their claims, but as the encyclopedia's PoV.

It is fair for the wiki to record the article topic's response to criticisms. It is not fair for the wiki to, as it has done here, presume that the article topic is automatically in the right and present the article as such. The article should be from the consensus point of view of independent parties, as we do everywhere else, not the point of view of a single organization. As it is now, the article reads as a barely concerned self-written piece.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's fair to point out that sources that Misplaced Pages deem reliable (e.g., the Washington Post) have pointed out that the SPLC is unreliable. These sources accuse the organization of having a history of charging individuals with false accusations. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html By Misplaced Pages's own standards, the SPLC cannot be taken as a reliable or neutral source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.12.34 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note the "opinion" part: that's only the personal opinion of columnist Thiessen. —Paleo Neonate – 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is widely cited off-wiki as an authority. Its biases are open and known. We always attribute its views, but there's no reason to exclude them as they are the single most cited source for this kind of analysis. Guy (help!) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am no fan of the SPLC (they should 'never be used as a source for whether an organization is a hate group or and individual is part of a hate group; they have been caught lying about that far too many times) but they are otherwise widely recognized by reliable sources as an authority, and there is zero reason to remove what they say in this case as long as it is attributed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, No, they have not been caught "lying". They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally. But reliable independent secondary sources routinely quote them, and thus so do we, but only with attribution. A review of the history of the individuals involved does make it rather obvious why SPLC listed them. Guy (help!) 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

They are unreliable on whether a hate group exists or on who is a member of a hate group. In other areas they are still widely cited by reliable sources and can be used with attribution. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Southern Poverty Law Center, where the strong consensus was that the SPLC is no longer reliable as the arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group.

Re: "They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally", please show your evidence that the SPLC ever retracted their false claim that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists. They have never issued a correction or in any way admitted that they were wrong, despite multiple print and TV news sources asking them about the claim.

See this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:

Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.

One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed.

The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong.

Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, the SPLC silently changed the claim to say that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll" to support that claim.

The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year, ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that falsely claims that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level

When you make a claim without a shred of evidence other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, and then change the claim to another false claim, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Debate on the Reliable Source Noticeboard concerning Mises

Following this suggestion, I am notifying all viewers of this talk page that there is currently a discussion involving Mises on the reliable sources noticeboard. Flickotown (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC IS NOT NEUTRAL

SPLC is not neutral source, you have to share only neutral sources, otherwise you can find a denounce for defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.97.52 (talk • contribs)

SPLC is an accepted source for facts such as this. Sources are not required to be neutral. See WP:BIASED.

Your "you can find a denounce" statement appears to be a violation of WP:No legal threats. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding to what Binksternet wrote, please see WP:SPLC. Llll5032 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Critics to the organization or to persons?

The section of Criticism has a paragraph that I see inaproppiate, because the content is not really criticism to the institution (that it is an independent academic organization, not a political proselitism organization) but to persons that have done a kind of activism or expressing opinions in their activism outside their institutional functions. As those lines are not specific criticism to the labor of the institution, I think this paragraph needs to be erased. If there are criticism to persons in particular those criticism have to been in the respective articles.

"The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views of some of its leading figures, on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump.Sanchez, Julian; Weigel, David (2008-01-16). "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?". Reason.com. Retrieved 2020-12-28. Sheffield, Matthew. "Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2020-12-28.Rutenberg, Jim; Kovaleski, Serge F. (2011-12-26). "Paul Disowns Extremists' Views but Doesn't Disavow the Support (Published 2011)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-28."

--Krapulat (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield's essay characterizes the institute itself, not just the leading figures. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's check it. Anyway that article is from 2008, let's work just on what it say. But, Trump presidential campaign was from 2016, and there is not an institutional support/communicate of it. That could be inmediatly erased.--Krapulat (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield's essay is from 2016. Llll5032 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to post this here because it took a little while to track down. SPLC is citied as quoting Steve Horwitz's Fist in Glove quote. He is Horwitz quoting it himself. https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonesyPHD (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of some material

The Current Activities section has a long paragraph on the German Mises Institute, but how is that relevant to the subject one in Alabama? Similarly, the last sentence in the History section mentions that there were "about 30" institutes with the same name, but there is no information about the connection, affiliation or other form of association with the American-based one. The article Ludwig von Mises: Inspiring Think Tanks Across The Globe appears to imply that there is no direct connection. Perhaps that paragraph and sentence ought to be placed in a separate "Similarly named organizations" section.

The two paragraphs that mention neo-Confederate positions or themes, only identify Rockwell, Rothbard and Hoppe by name, otherwise using the vague "Figures at the Mises Institute". The Hague, Beirich and Sebesta book Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction does give the names: Clyde N. Wilson (present at the only conference mentioning secession in its title and at a second conference on the costs of war), Thomas Fleming (political writer), and Sam Francis (writer) (according to the book, Fleming and Francis spoke at the second conference). A fourth person, Donald Livingston is also identified as "connected" to the institute. Wilson does have an author page at mises.org, but only four articles: two from 1995 and two from 1999 (republished in 2009). Fleming does not seem to have a page at mises.org, but he did present "Did the South Have to Fight?" at the 1994 Costs of War conference. Francis does have an author page (he died in 2005), with the single item being a recording of his presentation at that conference, "Classical Republicanism and the Right to Bear Arms". Livingston also does not seem to have a page in the current mises.org. The point is that these "figures" were not directly associated with the Mises Institute, they just spoke or presented papers at one or two conferences some thirty years ago. It would be more relevant if current material from Rockwell or Thomas DiLorenzo (current Institute president) were quoted or shown to have neo-Confederate tendencies. JmA (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: