Talk:Mises Institute/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

This reads somewhat like a hit piece

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here are some examples of agenda driven edits:

• [1] Reference from Texas Tech University re Mises University programs is added.
  • [2] Texas Tech reference removed.
• [3] Further reading item from US Air Force Academy cadet re Mises U program is added.
  • [4] Cadet commentary is removed as "non-notable, non-expert". But compare this to:
    • [5] Where commentary from a law student is added. (Reads as "Mises.org is accused of racism", but thrust of commentary is accusations are unfounded. Either way, source is not RS.) So,
    • [6] Law student commentary is removed (and BRD is opened). And then [7] Law student commentary is restored. The commentary is tagged, but then [8] {{Better source}} tag on law student commentary removed.
• [9] Mises.org event info removed; Compare this with:
  • [10] a Property and Freedom Society edit, by same editor, in which PFS event info is added.

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

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

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

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

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

Intellectual Property

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

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

gene-callahan.blogspot.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mises Institute ANI reopened.

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

Several unreliable sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At RS noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

Disgusted by lesbianism

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

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

Goldberg's opinions (BRD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of SPLC criticism re: "Parasites"

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

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

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

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

Deletion of Goldberg source

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

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

Blog & law student commentary

In this edit [11] an item with two citations, previously added in a Bold edit and then removed in a Revert, have been restored. To Discuss, I note the edit adds blog material and old commentary from a law student. While The Volokh Conspiracy may be a noted blog, it does not qualify as RS because it does not have editorial control and is admittedly a blog. Also, because the particular comment involves living people, comments in it come within WP:BLP policy. This issue was raised at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19#The Volokh Conspiracy .28legal blog.29 and found not acceptable RS. Second item: While LRC might be RS for certain authors and articles, in this context the comments of a law student, whether as to fact or opinion, are not RS. LRC may have published the piece, but it is not much more than a letter to the editor. – S. Rich (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publications, conferences, activities and awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eh? I haven't actually expressed an opinion regarding what should be done. I've just queried the rationale in an attempt to understand things better. I'm aware that those involved are keen on citing policies, so I'm curious about the hoops being jumped etc. I may express an opinion regarding retention/removal at some point, of course.

As far as DR is concerned, I don't think DR is appropriate unless there has already been a reasonable amount of discussion on the talk page: most of the DR processes seem (quite reasonably) to require that. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

[Insert reply: Sorry I should have specified this would be for a long pattern of SPECIFICO doing this on a number of articles in Austrian economics. (Study of his contributions and probably a dozen talk page sections illustrate the issue.) It's an alternative to RFC/U which itself is more a dispute resolution than WP:ANI forum.I've realized that the removal of WP:RS info for questionable reasons is far more frustrating than the constant insertion of poorly sourced attack material because it discourages putting in new material, which I have a lot of but too fed up with deletionism to put in. Entering good material will always make it easier to get rid of the bad, a strategy that was very successful for me in another contentious area. However, with two and now three editors dominating the articles with long questionable arguments, most editors throw up their hands and leave. As I've done myself before. User:Carolmooredc talk 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think this is a life and death matter. I didn't remove the section, merely stated it seems like fluff and borderline promotional content in terms of what should go in a WP article. If any of the publications are widely discussed by independent RS, that would establish their significance to the outside world and bolster the case for mentioning them in the article. Otherwise they appear to be among the many facts which may be of interest to members of the Institute and users of its website but which are of no particular interest or importance to humanity. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also WP:BALASPS requires that we do not over-emphasize insignificant information. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that RS strictly applies here (a LVMI source is fine for statements about the LvMI provided that it is not unduly self-serving?) but I will have a think. BALASP would only be relevant if the concern is that too much emphasis is being placed on the publications etc vis-a-vis other sections. Since I assume that publishing etc (dissemination of knowledge) is a primary function of the LvMI, it would be hard to justify saying nothing about it but equally would be wrong to list a catalogue of their efforts. Having said all this, can't we just use a bit of common sense instead of getting bogged down in another fusillade of acronyms? Almost all of the problems I've seen on these related articles have ultimately been caused by increasingly tortuous attempts to interpret policy etc. I, for one, tend to know what is right or wrong just from experience and I'm sure some of the other participants must do. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's some independent evidence that the publications, awards etc are of any significance outside the vMI then the mention is undue and self-serving. Do you call a person who wins a $20 gold piece a Laureate? Hmmm? SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You have misread me, I think. "Unduly self-serving" is not the same as "undue" and "self-serving". "Unduly self-serving" would be making an extravagant claim, such as the LvMI considers itself to be the most respected economics thinktank in the US. Anyway, you've convinced me that the first paragraph should stay - I was sat on the fence about it but no longer. It is a single paragraph, it concerns what appears to be a significant part of what they do and what they do forms a part of any article about any institute. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the section. I don't think the section in and of itself is a problem so long as we purge the promotional language. Simply describing the awards (i.e. the cash prize, how often they're given, and who wins them) is fine if it's done in a concise and neutral manner (which it wasn't previously). Steeletrap (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Off hand, looks OK, except they didn't say they gave North an award for Christian Reconstructionism; removed POV description and replaced with main description from Wiki article economic historian). User:Carolmooredc talk 01:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Prizes and awards

I think this is entirely self-serving. Steeltrap, I acknowledge that some of the recipients have WP articles but what if a local civic organization gave "man of the year award" to Derek Jeter or Donald Trump? Would we list the organization's award merely because they decided to honor a famous figure. I think we must test the importance/significance of the award itself, not merely those whom an organization decides to associate with itself by means thereof. Please consider an undo of your reinsertion. We don't even know whether these "laureates" acknowledged these prizes. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

First, your mocking the awards and people accepting them is not proper on a talk page. Also, I think it's quite obvious the people named would be happy to receive them. You've worked on all their articles so you know the connections. If there was someone listed who might not have, it would be an issue. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No mockery from me. Please be civil. Your opinion about the "recipients" reactions is, clearly WP:OR and has no place here. If you're saying that the prizes and awards are only given to their own affiliates, then that greatly diminishes the possibility that they are truly significant and noteworthy achievement in the eyes of the independent public. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

They make award(s} recognising something or another. It may well be that such awards are not notable in the WP:GNG sense and thus would not be eligible for their own article. That does not negate from the fact that they make the things and, by definition, consider them to be significant. Thus, they might be trivial or OTT to mention in any other article but they are not necessarily so in this article. I think everyone needs to calm down on the chilling claims regarding civility. When you have had death threats and libelous blog entries published about you for things done on Wikipedia, as I have, then you'll realise just how childish a lot of these claims (from all sides) really are. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) They also paint the corridors every 5 years, shall we put that in its own section as well. What about when they upgrade the plumbing? WP is not a relay for every wonderful activity of the organizations with artilces here. vMI is notable for those aspects of its activity which are considered notable by the outside world. Some of their deeds are of no interest, and some of what's on their website is self-serving promotion which we should not include here. That's why we look for RS secondary indications as to which of their activities and programs are worth mentioning here. Handing out dubloons to aspiring libertarian essayists may not fit the bill. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Self-serving" seems to becoming the new buzz-phrase since I mentioned it ;) "Self-serving" has regard to outlandish claims of importance etc, not whether something exists or not. All institutional, corporate and personal websites are self-serving, using your definition. Plumbing etc would obviously be trivial but awards are always worth considering. I'm fairly sure that we do mention such things in articles for other think-tanks & that they haven't created a storm of protest. Is there any particular reason why mentioning them here should be any different? - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's a few of us in that club. I had a 1000 email death threats from a well known banned editor, before something happened (Wikimedia finally took action?) and it stopped; and several different blog/etc. attacks here and there.

More importantly, I do think it's possible that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard would help cool tempers if the issues of a) editors as "experts"; b) non-academic purpose of wikipedia; c) editors "fringe" allegations and relation to editing; d) other issues were brought to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Otherwise it's just a matter of people baiting people to incivility by engaging in same editing habits, no matter how many times they've been opposed on them, or of people being forced to go to various noticeboards to try to resolve issues - and then that usually breaks down into incivility. I guess I should have started a separate thread about it Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If someone else did because they supported that idea, it would be great. User:Carolmooredc talk 14:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, although I quoted rs, I did not say LvMI was non-rs for themselves but quoted rs as saying, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking." LvMI is not a "third party." That does not mean that it cannot be used as a source, but its use must be minimal. TFD (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about that RS quote. Thanks for clarifying. Certainly, we tend to disapprove of articles that are based entirely on primary and/or self-published sources or that rely heavily even on a single reliable source. I don't see a conflict here, though: the statements that rely on such sources are purely factual and the notability upon which the basis of this article exists is apparently evident in third-party sources. Does anyone actually dispute that these awards exist and that the named people have been recipients? Maybe we don't need to show them all but something is worth saying, eg: off the top of my head "Among various prizes awarded annually by the LVMI is the USD10,000 XXXX, among the recipients of which have been X, Y and Z". We're talking one paragraph here, not a lengthy section. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And would we include all these important events and activities in the article as well? [12] [13] I would not. We need to include only what is independently confirmed as significant. Otherwise it's OR. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

How interesting. I pared down the list of awards here [14]; the shortened entry gets edited even more; and then User:Steeletrap restores the "benign" listing here [15]. Come on, we have articles about awards and awardees. Kalamazoo Central High School gave Derek Jeter an award one year and he attended the ceremony to receive it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Please read the comments in this thread. The Kalamazoo award is reported by an independent RS. What is your point? SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you say above that mentioning the awards it OR. How? That seems like a most peculiar interpretation of policy, given that there is a source. So, I ask again: does anyone dispute that these awards exist? - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you presented a strawman argument saying "what if a local civic organization gave "man of the year award" to Derek Jeter...". Well, a local organization did. "Would we list the organization's award merely because they decided to honor a famous figure." Well, Jeter's article does list the award. "...we must test the importance/significance of the award itself, not merely those whom an organization decides to associate with itself by means thereof." Kalamazoo CHS's award is not a very significant or important one compared to some of Jeter's other awards. (But he may feel otherwise.) There was no qualification in your statement about citations supporting award events. You were arguing "self-serving" and comparing the awards to "local civil organizations". In any event, RS does not require that all sources be independent. We evaluate the RS – primary and secondary – in context. In this instance LvMI itself is sufficiently reliable to use for listing the awards. I pared down the listing because $20 gold pieces aren't significant. But when we have people with articles receiving the awards and when the awards have some significant cash behind them, it is appropriate to mention them. – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Need I point out that it's fruitless to post comments on this thread without reading and responding to the views and concerns set forth above? It's all about secondary RS confirmation. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is secondary stuff: Peter G. Klein got an award as mentioned here [16]. Southwestern Law School professor Butler D. Shaffer got a 2012 award, although his faculty profile does not mention it [17]. There is no dispute that various people get particular awards. But we can avoid unnecessary (and perhaps promotional) detail by simply relying on Mises.org. Why is the detail unnecessary? Well, we do not want or need to confirm that a variety of people got different awards by posting the variety of secondary sources that are available. WP:V is entirely satisfied by the Mises.org link. – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter greatly which source is used to verify but it helps with flow etc to reduce the number of citations where that is feasible. Arguments about undue promotion seem almost to be a last-ditch attempt to get this info out of the article, having tried various other odd routes such as WP:OR. It has become a timesink and pertinent questions are being ignored or deflected when, it would seem, to answer them would be inconvenient to the aim. If there is much more of it then it'll be taken not to DR but to ANI: if anyone cannot see the behavioural issues that are causing these situations then they really do have a problem with their competence to contribute, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, in opposition to "all about secondary sources", a reminder about Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves which discusses when such info is WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Separate discussion of awards

This topic was split off from #Publications, below.

Carol, you must have missed my remark above: "And would we include all these important events and activities in the article as well? [18] [19] I would not. We need to include only what is independently confirmed as significant. Otherwise it's OR. " We can't just copy every vMI event and "award" from the website. What is the standard for selection? It cannot be your opinion. This is why at WP we use secondary RS to confirm the selection. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You bring up irrelevant topics not under discussion. Their SPS listing of awards is relevant and WP:RS. And note that The Wall Street Journal article currently used includes this information: scholars for research sabbaticals and formal programs such as its week-long Mises University every summer. As well as other interesting tidbits left out so far. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful, in order to move this thread toward convergence, if you would answer the question I asked above. Would you include this [20] and this [21] and this [22] in the WP article? There are many similar events publications and awards listed on the website. In the absence of some clear secondary indication of the importance and encyclopedia-worthiness of these items, I do not believe they can just be relayed on WP, as if they were of interest or importance to anyone not affiliated with vMI. So, would you include the linked items, and if not why not? Thx. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why single me out in the section called publications to talk about awards? Feel free to move your defacto new section to appropriate space and we all can discuss it. User:Carolmooredc talk 21:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Publications

I have no problem mentioning the books and blog stuff on Mises.org. But the two Journals are self-promotion. If those are serious publications, it should be easy to find an independent RS which discusses the publications, their role in the economic or libertarian spheres and their significance. I have not been able to find and independent indication that they are of any broad interest. The WP articles on them are the measliest of stubs, with only primary sources and are good candidates for an AfD in each case. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just a courtesy to tag such material and give people a chance to get better refs or clean up the material. But you too often go straight to deletion, necessitating yet another section discussion what you deleted. User:Carolmooredc talk 01:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should delete the journals and keep the prizes. The prizes are about people (notable) while the jouranls are about scholarship (non-notable). Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico's distain for these publications and the whole Institute from your own academic "high horse" really is a neutrality problem. That kind of POV really is problematic in editing an article that is just for general knowledge, not an academic treatise. Please try to discuss the articles and individuals in a more neutral fashion. And think about discussion a series of recent deletions at WP:DR. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I'm going to ask you now to comment on content and not editors or your personal feelings. If you continue to fill your talk page comments with personal disparagement and a narrative of your dislike for your fellow editors here, I am going to ask for Admin intervention per the Sanctions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we'd finally get an answer to question I've asked repeatedly at ANI about Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors and publicizing issues. Anyway, I'm just trying to clarify the issue for A WP:DR which I think it would be nice if you engage in regarding deleting material that academics view differently from regular editors. I guess that's a less personalized way of approaching the issue since it's not just one individual but seemingly three. I'll give it a couple days to investigate and document in any case. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol Moore: If you make another comment on contributors rather than on content, I will remove your comments from this talk page. — goethean 02:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be unwise. Arzel (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You really think I give a shit what you think is unwise? — goethean 03:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you see the irony in that statement? Arzel (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the journals is not self-serving. Both of them have their own articles and have been (or were) for many years. Not seeing the problem with those two sentences. Arzel (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've commented elsewhere, both of those seem to be ripe for AfD. No sources no evidence of notability. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have to strongly disagree. Journals don't often have a lot of press unless they are like the NEJM. For example, the journal Operations Research is the top journal in Operations Research (my field). By your argument this article should be deleted as well (as well as pretty much every single journal related article). Arzel (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You make your arguments, I will make my arguments. WP standards for notability are clear enough. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves clearly states policy. There's no reason to try to create new policy. It's clear they are WP:RS for merely mentioning the fact they have awards or a journal and mentioning relevant names. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)