Talk:Ludwig von Mises

Primary sources

This needs a major reworking, as about half of references are from author's writings/organizations linked to author. This is especially flagrant in the sections about his views, which also appear to constitute OR in a great part. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Went through a dozen of my old econ textbooks and some old russian economists writings to add 3rd party citations to a bunch of stuff that otherwise would've been deleted. Regarding the use of source material for some citations about Mises' own positions the wiki sourcing guidelines state: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves." Follynomics (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't list people's beliefs at such a great length when there is so little other content, because then it is undue weight. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

“In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space” - Wikipedia guidelines. Since the page is dedicated to von Mises, his theories, writings, and ideas are of primary relevance. It is reasonable to give substantial attention to his perspectives, even if they are not widely accepted, because they define his work and legacy. The current version of the page acknowledges that the entire method and system Mises used for economics is rejected by mainstream economics and is widely considered not to be economics. This context helps provide a balanced understanding of his contributions and their reception. Follynomics (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I added {{Primary source inline}} to a sentence about Mises creating praxeology. That sentence is not a statement of his views, but a statement of general historical fact that should not be sourced to his own book. In fact, Mises created only one kind or school of praxeology. Biogeographist (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the details about praxeology, but I do know that a biography of person X should not have half its sources as X's writings, "X institute", or "X.com". — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The wiki is not aimed at being a biography (one already exists) but a representation and summary of X’s knowledge on various topics. It’s reasonable to think using X as a source may present a one-sided view and lack critical analysis. This can result in a portrayal that aligns closely with the subject’s own perspective without sufficient external evaluation. However, an accurate representation of X’s ideas should include their own words, as they are the most direct expression of his thoughts. Adding criticisms and objections to his views would help provide an NPOV but should not overshadow the primary objective of accurately conveying his contributions and theories. Follynomics (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article about a person is generally called a biography: see WP:BIO. I expect that's all that Alien333 meant by "a biography of person X". For example, Immanuel Kant is a biography article even though the "Biography" section is shorter than the "Philosophy" section. There are also separate articles on Kant's philosophy: Kantianism, Kantian ethics, and Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Those are not biography articles.

For the words of Mises, there is also Wikiquote: q:Ludwig von Mises. Biogeographist (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To complete that: as for any article, having a standalone article about someone's ideas requires significant coverage of specifically these ideas.

Comment: the reworking I was calling for has in a large part been done, as much content as been sourced, though I still have some things to say (maybe you were not the one to do some of these things, but just in case):

• Please don't mix up references, giving the sources for information, and explanatory notes. For the latter, give them a group name, such as <ref group=n > ... </ref>, and put {{reflist|group=n}} in a "Notes" section near the bottom.
• Be careful with original research. For example, at some point the article supported a claim of Mises' opinion of Marx with a source from marx's writings, so that is extrapolating from Marx what Mises thought of him. (There was also a second, more appropriate reference, so I left that sentence). The list of key aspects of his defense of liberalism also isn't given as was (or source was not given), it was extrapolated from mises' writings, which makes it OR. I've done my best to crop it out.
• I recounted the refs, and there are as of now about 40 primary sources out of 120, so about a third. This is still a lot, but a significant improvement from three days ago.

— Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the concern about original research. I see where you’re coming from, but I believe there’s a slight misunderstanding regarding the context. The citation of Marx’s writings in the discussion about Mises wasn’t to extrapolate Mises’ opinion of Marx, but rather to acknowledge that Mises responded to Marx’s critique of capitalism by offering a positive alternative in ‘Liberalism.’

Marx himself criticized utopian socialism for lacking practical alternatives, focusing solely on critiquing capitalism and awaiting its collapse. Since this critique was central to Marx’s own philosophy, it seems appropriate to reference his work directly. This isn’t an interpretation of Mises but rather a recognition of Marx’s own position, which influenced Mises’ approach. I hope this clarifies the intent behind the citation. Follynomics (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Political views?

I believe there is currently too much content crammed into the sections on economic contributions and reception, much of which diverges from these specific topics. I suggest we create a separate section dedicated to his political views, as these played a significant role in his life and are central to his body of work. This new section would allow for a more focused discussion of his stances on socialism, liberalism, and fascism, which are currently dispersed and somewhat awkwardly appended to various sections of the article. Follynomics (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)