Talk:Mises Institute

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 60 days

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

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Libertarianism B‑class High‑importance

	Libertarianism portal Mises Institute is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alabama B‑class

	Alabama portal This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Organizations Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

DickClarkMises (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
Nskinsella (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Template:Findnote

SPLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's fair to point out that sources that Wikipedia deem reliable (e.g., the Washington Post) have pointed out that the SPLC is unreliable. These sources accuse the organization of having a history of charging individuals with false accusations. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b1514bc489cf By Wikipedia's own standards, the SPLC cannot be taken as a reliable or neutral source.

A serious conceptual error in the page

There is a serious conceptual error in the page: The Mises Institute's mission is described, among others, as "defense of the market economy". In reality The Mises Institute is advancing capitalism and replacing market economy. Market economy is an economy based on exchanging goods with money as a means, but the Misesian (and Friedmanite) dogma is based on accumulating money at the expense of exchange.

Capitalism is wealth accumulation but market economy is economic exchange. The Misesian framework keeps money artificially scarce (the "sound money" pseudo-argument) and is identical to Friedmanite framework. Needless to say that this difference means different concepts of individual freedom. The Misesian interpretation is enhancing the liberty of the few at the expense of the majority of men.

The "sound money" pseudo-argument is also a means to wage war against modern states and constitutes at the same time the basis of expectations manipulation. John Maynard Keynes held expectations as exogenous but Friedmanites and Misesians have endogenized these, and call them rational (or consistent) referring their rationality or consistency to the economic model. Mises and his followers are totalitarians (or inverted totalitarians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vienna Totalitarians (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if everything you say is true (I personally have no idea whether it is or not), to make changes to the article you would need to provide reliable sources that verify any new content. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberalism

My Neoliberalism's addition to "See also" section was reverted by Saturnalia0, whose action I consider an undue censorship. I'd like to see where the local consensus stands on this. Carlotm (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not see the relation. The "neoliberalism" article explicitly mentions that the ideas defended by the subject of this article are opposing to it, and there is no mention to "neoliberalism" in this article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there is some connection, but IMO not enough to include on a short "see also" list. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Streeck in his How Will Capitalism End? writes explicitly about "neoliberal Hayekianism". Carlotm (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Sarwark

Can someone explain under "criticisms" the Nicholas Sarwark controversy in further detail? The Jason Stapleton interview of Nicholas Sarwark may help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoul flesh (talk • contribs)

Wish I could. The source is essentially a blog that is looking at Sarwark's Tweets which vaguely reference Tweets from an un-verified Twitter account under the name Tom Woods. I do not think the "criticism" from the LP Chair (Sarwark) is either WP:V or WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it hasn't gotten much coverage at all, but Sarwark has gotten a lot of backlash from libertarians for his comments. Many want him removed as chair in 2018. See the comments on this video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKDvAkUuztQ It's a major controversy in the LP right now.

It would probably stand to be mentioned on Sarwark's Wikipedia page rather than Ludwig von Mises Institute's. I know there is a problem with notability, though. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mises Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220093841/http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html to http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus coat of arms

That's a quite a coat of arms apparently claimed by the Mises Institute. I mean, I'm no expert on reading heraldry, but apparently they're claiming that it was a crown-grant, which is most impressive for an American organization formed in 1982. Was it from the King of the Moon? I realize that this kind of thing has fallen by the wayside, but this is the modern equivalent of claiming several doctorates backed by diploma mills. I don't know if Wikipedia should be giving it the time of day. AndroidCat (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything the the article claiming it was a crown-grant. I think that on the US they are self-taken. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherent in the coat of arms: A barred helm with a crown on top means a major grant of nobility from the crown. (Heraldry was the emojis of the day, and even illiterates were expected to understand them at a glance.) Rather than that silly twaddle, why not use the logo from their website? https://mises.org/sites/default/files/logo_v3.png AndroidCat (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the CoA is from the Mises Family. From the Mises institute website: The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. https://mises.org/profile/ludwig-von-mises this took me 30 seconds of research Maxlysle (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the 9th most influential think tank in the United States"

The lede states that " according to a popularity ranking of 2015 the Mises Institute ranked as the 9th most influential think tank in the United States", citing a page on thebestschools.org website. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and accordingly this statement, if it belongs in the article at all, does not belong in the lede, since no mention of it is made elsewhere. And I have to ask whether it actually belongs in the article anyway. I see no obvious reason why thebestschools.org should be considered a reliable source on 'popularity' as a general concept. Nor does it appear to claim to be so. Instead it gives its own criteria. Whether such criteria are valid as a measure of 'popularity' is clearly a subjective opinion, making the ranking itself subjective. And per Wikipedia policy, opinions need to be described as such, and properly attributed. If this ranking is to be mentioned at all I'd suggest that it is first necessary to find evidence that it is being cited by third-party sources, and then reworded to explicitly state where the 'popularity ranking' came from. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]