Talk:Mises Institute

Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as "cult"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion of RS based on WP:Blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable scholars section

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of non-web accessible sources

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

The institute as a cult

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paleolibertarian support for LvMI edits (BRD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murphy blog as RS for article (BRD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh? No evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neo confederate & SPS criticisms (BRD)

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

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

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

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

@srich:

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

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

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

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

Removal of under construction template & undoing edits undertaken

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

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

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

Polemicist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tendentious editing

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

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

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

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

{{SPS}} tag removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Faculty" in infobox (BRD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More BRD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concern regarding sockpuppets

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

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

Please discuss content instead of edit-warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meat puppet edits?

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

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

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

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

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

What changes do you currently have problems with?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments regarding article content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit protected

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

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

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

•  Done

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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