Talk:Mises Institute/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)

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)

[[File:|25px|link=]] Why? See: [1] – 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 [2]. The entire Callahan blog material was then removed by me [3]. The material now in article was inserted later (sans talk page discussion) [4]. – 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)

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 [5]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 17 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 [6] 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 [7]. 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

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)

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)

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?

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)

Friedman personal blog material

In this edit [8] 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: [9] 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)

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. [10]— 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: [11]. 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)

Callahan personal blog material (BRD)

In this edit [12] 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 [13] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

BLPN concerning Bernstein/Volokh

A BLP Noticeboard thread has been posted here [14]. 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)

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.[15] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)