Talk:Mises Institute/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Storck's review of Ferrara's book

In changes here [1] we see Ferrera's commentary removed and a review of Ferrara's book substituted. But what is Storck saying about Mises.org? He mentions the Mises.org affiliated scholars and "libertarian adherents of so-called Austrian economics". And he says Ferrara is critical of the Austrians vis-a-vis the Catholic church. But nothing in the review directly supports the topic of our article – Mises.org. And he does not say that Ferrera is talking about Mises.org. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

1) It's the "Mises Institute", not "mises.org." 2) Reread the article. The Institute is explicitly mentioned, and scholars advocating the views Ferrara is opposing are identified (by the reviewer) with LvMI

The article may mention the Mises Institute, but that is not enough to show the article directly supports anything about the institute. Woods was "affiliated" with Harvard and Columbia in that he went to school there. Would we put stuff about what he had written in the articles about those schools? Also I note that Gordon's review of T. Woods' book has been added. Neither the Storck or Gordon reviews say anything about Mises.org. I have added a {{SYN}} tag to the paragraph. Perhaps "off-topic" is a better characterization of the paragraph, but I would like to see how these references pertain to the topic of the article. WP is WP:NOTFORUM or a platform for discussion of Ferrara's, Woods', or Gordon's views. (Mises,org is shorthand for Ludwig von Mises Institute.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The views of Institute scholars -- if explicitly identified with the Institute by an RS (as is the case here) -- are perfectly relevant to and can be used in this article. If a Harvard Law Professor argued that one should be able to sell his children to the "highest bidder" or let them starve to death, you can bet controversy would ensue and it would reflect badly upon Harvard. Steeletrap (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Columbia/Harvard analogy you make is specious because Woods is an alumnus of those institutions, but has no ongoing relationship with them of any kind. Not so with LvMI, which publishes most of his work. Steeletrap (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC) NOTE: I'm talking about Woods in relation to the analogy Rich posed. The above statement about letting kids starve/selling them off like slaves derives from Rothbard, not Woodie. Steeletrap (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not only specious, it's tendentious. This should go straight to DR. Srich, is that your story and you're sticking with it? Let's try DR/mediation and save some tail-chasing here. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Are saying I want to take this to DR? Not at all. I'd like some explanation as to how these two book reviews have any pertinence to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. They say these guys publish with LvMI and therefore the reviews represent some criticism of LvMI? This last paragraph in the criticism section is no better than the "Views espoused by LvMI scholars" section. And we can see how the RfC as to that section is going. But I add an analogy and you accuse me of tendentious editing. Amazing! Just answer the editing question – how does the material in these two book reviews directly support anything in the article about LvMI? – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you are seriously asserting that analogy should determine whether that text is in this article? If so, we need DR. In the meantime, I think that editor @Steeletrap: has already responded to you on this. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The analogy was presented simply in an effort to illustrate the weakness in Steeletrap's argument. Simply because a book review says "The author of this book also publishes with LvMI/is an adjunct scholar or fellow with LvMI or whatever", it is not enough to show the book review is discussing the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Again, the question is unanswered – what is there in the book reviews that "criticizes" the Ludwig von Mises Institute? The WP:BURDEN is on Steeletrap to show how the material directly supports the article text. If you think it does, Specifico, why don't you step up and explain how or why it supports the text. But if there is nothing that does so, then inclusion of these book reviews violates policy. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are neither the staff sergeant nor the magistrate here, and your argument was clearly and decisively refuted. Please don't issue orders to other editors. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The main point of the book review is an affirmation of Ferrara's book, the main point of which is to criticize the argument by prominent Mises scholars -- who Ferrara identifies as such -- that Catholicism is compatible with their conception of libertarianism. A book review responding to the views of its scholars, as published by the Institute, is clearly relevant to LvMI. You are resting your case on the number of times the review uses the term "Mises Institute", which is a weak, semantical argument. Why should he have to repeatedly identify the Institute? Once is sufficient, and that burden was met when he noted that the scholars Ferrara criticize are associated with LvMI. The review MUST be about the opinions of the Institute's scholars; it cannot be about the opinions of the Institute, because as previously mentioned the Institute is not a conscious being, but a concept and a building.. Steeletrap (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Mises.org in an article is not enough to satisfy the directly support requirement of CONTEXTMATTERS. The reviews say nothing about Mises.org as an institution. Nothing. This is simply another off-topic bit of stuff. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What in your mind would "say something about the Institute ... as an institution"? Bumps in the night from the furniture? A mission statement? You do of course know that such a statement would not be composed by everyone (all 350 scholars and tens of thousands of dues-paying members) associated with the Institute. I am pretty sure that the scholarly work produced by an Institute's scholars is what defines institutions, not vague "mission statements". When that work is responded to by RS, we can and should use it in the article. (Does anyone know Harvard Law School's mission statement? Is this what distinguishes it as an institution from 3rd or 4th tier schools? Or is it the scholarly work of its professors and job prospects of their grads?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

Note, I have moved the particular paragraph out of the "criticisms" section (as the reviews do not address criticisms of the institution) and put it into the "Views espoused" section. (I'll make additional commentary in the "off-topic" thread.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with Harvard is relevant. The liberal scholar Michael Ignatieff, who was head of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government wrote a book, The Lesser Evil, where he said, "...defeating terror requires violence. It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights...To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations [i.e., torture], targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." That is actually more chilling than Rothbard's views on policing. The works of Ernst Nolte, whom Lipstadt accused of trying to rehabilitate Hitler, are regularly used as sources for books about fascism. Unless a source connects the dots, our attempts to do so are synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful here, because the LvMI is nothing like Harvard. It's not an accredited university that grants tenure. It also doesn't have any pretense of neutrality; it's dedicated towards advocacy. For these reasons, we can distinguish between the crazy stuff that tenured Harvard professors say and what Harvard itself stands behind, but the border between LvMI and its scholars is permeable.

The point is that there's no synthesis involved in writing about the views of LvMI scholars in an article about the LvMI itself. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct ... if the scholars explicitly state that they are writing with their LvMI hat on. Otherwise, they're just another academic writing something. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the scholars don't decide this, the institute does. They each write with their own hat, but the Institute decides who to hire and publish. MilesMoney (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And the scholars have to do what the LvMI says and how it says it? I presume you've seen their contract of employment or something similar? Looks like WP:OR to me. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not run on how things look to you. There is no policy about writing with hats; you made it up just now. It's a hoop you'd like us to jump through, but this isn't a circus and you're not the ringmaster. We have to follow what policy says, not your unique interpretation of it. Please frame your arguments in terms of policy, not your desires. MilesMoney (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The policies would appear to be WP:OR (WP:SYNTH), WP:DUE and WP:V. Probably some more but I tire of dealing with this rubbish very quickly. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sure you know by now that referring to our discussion as rubbish is uncivil. The relevant policy for that is WP:CIVIL, in case you want to look it up. If you're impatient with this discussion, I'm sure nobody would fault you if you took a break to cool off or something. Second, it's not really enough to toss out four acronyms. You need to pick one and show how it actually applies. If you can't, then your argument is not more convincing than my saying [[WP:CIA]], [[WP:FBI]], [[WP:KBG]], and [[WP:TLA]]. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"First of all, I'm sure you know by now that referring to our discussion as rubbish is uncivil" - bollocks. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And you know that your follow-up is likewise uncivil. MilesMoney (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, MilesMoney, if you think that I was breaching the civility policy then you should report me. Don't tell me because I'm not interested. People in these Austrian economics debate seem to cite that civility thing when it suits them but go right ahead and ignore it when it doesn't. I don't pay any attention to what your interpretation of the policy is in such such circumstances because it is a broken record. I suggest that you put you (Miles)Money where your mouth is. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, Sitush, I am obligated to notify you here before I go to any drama page, to show that I'm trying to work with you to encourage you to curb your bad behavior, as opposed to just looking for some excuse to get you blocked or banned. The latter would be acting in bad faith, after all. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No you are not obligated. Wher eon earth did you get that idea from? - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Harvard also "decides who to hire and publish." If secondary sources consider there is anything significant about how they do this, then we can mention it. Otherwise, it is just personal opinions of editors. TFD (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) As I've already explained, Harvard grants tenure. This means that, when they hire someone who seems reasonable and they turn out not to be, tenure gets in the way of firing the nut. None of this applies to LvMI, so when it continues to retain, and publish the work of, a scholar, we must take it as an endorsement. LvMI is an advocacy group, not a university, so it's actually in the primary business of endorsing and promulgating, as opposed to neutrally educating. But I said both of these things already and nothing in your reply addresses these points. It's not very productive for you to ignore points that you disagree with. The collegial thing to do is to either retract your argument or defend it. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Plenty of scholars are employed by plenty of institutes/universities etc but academia is generally one of those areas where censorship by an employer is recognised as an impedance. Scholars tend to get far more freedom of expression than, say, a civil servant. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises institute does not grant tenure to its employees. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) LvMI does not qualify as academia for these purposes, as it is partisan and does not offer tenure; it's not an accredited institution. See above. MilesMoney (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't? Since "tenure" just means "you can't dismiss without due cause", it is no more than the standard employment right protected by labour laws in many countries. Do you have a copy of a LvMI contract of employment that exempts the institute from such employment protection legislation? Does it not exist in the US? - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No such protection does not exist in the US. We operate on free market principles here, including in the labor markets. Please end this thread both of you. It's nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I'll end it when there is consensus. Right now, there seems to be none. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignatieff did not have tenure at Harvard, and they re-hired him after he took a stint as a Canadian politician. And the University Press has no obligation to publish anything. If you have to explain how the LvMI should be blamed for doing what prestigious universities do, then that is OR and you need a source. TFD (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To remind you, LvMI is an advocacy group that's not accredited and doesn't offer tenure. Please stop trying to draw false parallels to Harvard: LvMI is nothing like Harvard. As for WP:OR, you have it exactly backward. These false parallels are themselves WP:SYNTH on your part, with the foreseeable consequence of eliminating LvMI material that might not be seen favorably by some. This would be a violation of WP:NPOV, as such selective filtering biases the article. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:IDHT. Unless a source specifically attributes the opinions as being those of the LvMI and/or the publication appears under the LvMI imprint, it has no place here. It isn't about NPOV: any criticisms of any person affiliated with LvMI at any time - past, present or future - can be dealt with in the articles relating to those individuals, assuming that they have an article. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be saying you didn't hear what I said, so I'll helpfully repeat myself: There is no policy supporting your claim that the writings of LvMI scholars must not be mentioned on Ludwig von Mises Institute. There is no policy about hats. There is no policy requiring additional sources to link them. These are not policy, just your preference, and I am bound by the former, not the latter. Also, you're factually mistaken about related issues, such as the nature of tenure. This is likely because you've joined me on articles whose subject matter is unfamiliar to you. MilesMoney (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already named some policies. That I am not particularly knowledgeable about the subject matter is a bonus here, not an impediment. I, for one, cannot be accused of a bias. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You have named policies but they don't actually support these conclusions. If you disagree, you would need to quote relevant parts of the policies so as to show why you think they apply. It's not up to us to guess at your intentions. and we'd likely guess wrong, anyhow.

It's possible, but not a foregone conclusion, that those who know a lot about a subject wind up biased. On the other end, those who know too little are unable to evaluate the basic facts and therefore edit randomly or on whim. The goal would be to learn as much as you can while remaining capable of neutrality. In this matter, ignorance is not bliss, just as knowledge is not a panacea. MilesMoney (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly capable of evaluating policy and I have a reputation here for my ability to evaluate sources etc, so please stop the sniping. Does the item in question criticise the LvMI or the writer? If it does the former but not the latter then WP:DUE applies. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Quotes or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you read it? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." No mention of the LvMI's alleged stance etc in the criticism = no mention in the article because there is no relevant "signficant viewpoint". I could also cite WP:V and WP:BLP etc, as previously mentioned. Give up, Miles: the topic ban discussion is not over yet. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't, which is why I can still comment here. I'm quite familiar with that quote, but there's nothing in it that supports your conclusion. It doesn't say we get to make an artificial distinction between an advocacy group's own scholars and the views of the group. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you are not worried about WP:TE etc then I suppose that is your business - but you are doing it here. The artificial distinction being made is that the opinion of one person is that of the group. We cannot do this. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not worried about your WP:TE; I'm kind of used to it by now. Regardless, you still need to quote policy to support your claim that we cannot report the published views of members of this advocacy group here. You keep offering your interpretation of rules that don't actually say what you want them to say, which is counterproductive. Please offer specific quotes or just retract your objection. In fact, anything short of the former will become indistinguishable over time from the latter. MilesMoney (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

off topic ~Adjwilley
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per the below, Miles won't be discussing any more since he has been banned from his article. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC) @Carolmooredc: Please focus on the content, not the contributors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Pardon me for thinking there might be people not knowing who would reply and wonder why there wasn't one. Guess I should have waited for a non-knowing reply. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In light of the administrator's final closing of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute, which addresses the usage of blog material, etc. in this article, I think it is proper to close this discussion and remove the Ferrara material. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. It looks like all the junky self-published blogs and other questionable RS are gone. Now just have to be wary of them or other such sneaking back in. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ferrara material isn't a blog though, nor had the current source for it even been added at the time of the attempt to snuff out Miles (which was a consensus formed on diffs unrelated to the BLP issue). Do what you want on this issue, but hasn't your (Rich's) position changed on this? Steeletrap (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not a blog. People should also remember that not all blogs are unreliable etc - some are unreliable, some are just unusable in certain situations. I also think it best not to keep sniping about the MilesMoney ban here: it is done and pointed comments here will achieve nothing except give the appearance of gravedancing or its opposite. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Blog or not, the problem remains. The material does not discuss Mises Institute. – S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor wrote at wp:RS: There should be no shortage of criticism of the Institute to include, but I can't see why we should include a paragraph about an article in an obscure newspaper by an obscure author responding to criticism of his obscure book. We don't just include any old person's opinion at criticism - we look for people with expertise, prominence or influence. User:Neljack 23:10, 28 October 2013 User:Carolmooredc talk 15:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute is an obscure entity. Its scholars have little expertise, prominence or influence. Christopher Ferrara is hardly "any old person" and to refer to him as such is either ignorant or disingenuous. Ferrara had something notable to say about the Misesians in this RS citation. That's why it's in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If Mises is obscure and uninfluential then why is there such drama here trying to criticize them. One would assume that such and obscure and non-infulential group could just as easily be ignored all together. However, that Paradox aside, what Ferrara had to say is not nearly as important as how well known he is. Carol presented from the RS probably the best reason why Ferrara's opinion should not be included. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading the section I must say it is one of the more contrived paragraphs I have seen in some time. Basically Ferrara doesn't like one of LvM arguemnts and the New Oxford Review agree with Ferrara's thesis. The worst part about it is that it is an argument of the hypothetical. Basically it is an argument over who has rights over their children ,the parents or the state, using an hypothetical situation. It is not even really a criticism, it is simply a difference of opinion. The whole section should be removed as undue weight. At the very least it needs to be re-written, as it is currently a logical mess. Arzel (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is very little written about the LvMI and most references to it are in passing. That should guide us to keep the article brief. It does not justify lessening content standards. TFD (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Resolution Summary" to conclude discussions?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have noted over the last six months a lot of discussions go on and on on these Austrian economics articles, coming to a resolution, and two weeks later the edit that was taken out is back in or the material that was put in is taken out and people don't notice because it's assumed it was decided. Or else the whole thing is reopened, with the same core group of editors and maybe one or two new ones, and usually no new WP:RS of merit!! I thought Ferrera was out as just WP:Undue silliness, but it's back. Elsewhere see Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Covenant_communities.

If we have something like Resolution: Remove WP:OR interpretation of primary source quote, by Editor X, Editor Y, Editor Z, Date (see also WP:RSN discussion). With a template of something like {{resolved |outcome= txt|Editors= x, y, z| See also:= Noticeboard or other link|date=March 2013}}

It only would be "mandatory" if one participant asked for it. And "stuck" would be an option. Thus we can keep track of who decided what.

Sure, with really good sources now, or six months down the line with mostly new editors, reopen it. Anyway, I'm throwing this out here, but maybe village pump with a policy proposal is the place to go. I think it would be a great addition to the consensus and make people come to a conclusion rather than dragging out conversation til people get too tired to continue and important bad things are left in or good things are kept out. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Such a template is likely to be considered a bad idea: it chills future discussion and could impact on the ability to amend an article for changes that have in fact occurred. It is a common problem - see, for example, Talk:Nair or Talk:Narendra Modi. However, this is not the place to discuss templates. We can use diffs to prior threads here and any general proposals of a policy/technical nature need to be discussed at an appropriate general forum, which in this case is probably VPP or VPT, as you said. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. I later came up with some caveats as you mention. I remembered I have seen resolved check mark used a few times on article talk pages. Is there any existing policy, guideline, essay on this? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 21:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is permanently "resolved" on WP. That is the nature of the beast. BTW those little dingbats "resolved" "stuck" "XXX" are of little use in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please move Ferrara comment to correct section. Thanks Correction Ferrara was never removed. There was no consensus for this (even Srich wanted Ferrara to stay, only in a shorter form). The only "removal" was of a primary source and replacement with a clearly reliable secondary source, the mainstream Catholic publication New Oxford Review. Steeletrap (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Funding

Who or what funds this thing? Is it classed as a business, an educational body, a charity or what? - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a 501(c)(3) exempt organization. See the section on the talk page earlier about the endowment for more information. Another editor wouldn't allow my sourced edit. Bahooka (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I wasn't asking for details of the endowment, which could only be derived from LvMI sources and which most certainly might be open to interpretation. I'm merely interested in how it is funded/constituted. That deserves a mention if it can be sourced. I'll have to read the 501(c) link you gave me - I'm not familiar with US law. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully the link will explain a little more about the funding of the such organizations (the endowment is just one source.) If I see anything specifically on LvMI, I will bring it here. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the reason to add much information that can only be sourced to the website. Readers are free to click on the clink to the website, the LvMI can put what they think important on their home page, and readers can decide what to think about them. TFD (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The infobox has revenue & expenses info, cited by two RS organizations. The topic of who might be funding LvMI might be interesting, but this webpage FAQ: Funding is the only one that talks about "who". I don't think the info is helpful enough for the article. – S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't seeking a list of names, just an idea of the structure: privately-funded by a philanthropist, publicly funded, funded via donations etc. And anything that is said in an infobox has to be said in the body. Like the lead section, infoboxes are deemed to be a summary of article content. Indeed, one of the arguments often posed by those who dislike infoboxes is that people do not read them (and I didn't in this case!). - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, these "RS organizations" are just looking up government tax forms and repeating the information declared by the Mises Institute. We really know very little about vMI's finances and -- like other "information" on their website it is not what an independent researcher would consider descriptive. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Situshi, like you I've thought the material in the infobox should summarize the text in the article. But your comment prompted me to look at the MOS, and now I'm not so sure. At WP:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#References in infoboxes we see the requirement for citations, but the language implies that stand alone material in the infobox is acceptable. And the introductory paragraph to the MOS says the infobox "summarises key features of the page's subject." (Emphasis added.) It does not say infoboxes summarize key features of the article or page. Thus we can use the infobox to add info like expenses & revenue, number of staff, {{coord}}, etc. without posting the info in the article text as prose. (Personally I like the infoboxes. They allow for quick finds of "key features", which would be impossible if all info was in the prose.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

But Srich, you're ignoring Sitush's statement -- namely that the infobox contains information which is not "key features" so whether you enjoy using them for whatever key features of the article text they may include is not responsive to Sitush's post. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, if you want to debate the figures then please oculd you do so in a separate section. I don't want this one derailed with pov-oriented arguments like so many others have been: I sought comments concerning a simple point that has nothing to do with numbers. Srich, I don't really care what MOS says about this: ask anyone who is a regular contributor of some years' standing and they'll tell you that if it is in the infobox then it should be in the body. It is an exercise in semantics when we start quibbling about the definition of "subject" vs "article" and, frankly, I'm utterly fed up of seeing so many instances of such exercises in this topic area. Please don't let's encourage the voicing of more pedantry than we have already seen on this talk page ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I've already addressed what I understand to be your concern. vMI is a private institution. Its finances are not disclosed except to the extent required by the US Government to maintain its "tax-exempt" status. The only data is what's filed with the government. All these others which may appear to be independent RS are just scraping the data off public record IRS filings and repackaged in websites such as the Charity Navigator. Your other point above is well taken, and in that instance it surely is beneficial to get fresh eyes here. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, it is a "private institution" that claims 501(c)(3) exemption status. Can we source that? Can we define "private institution"? Anything is better than nothing, just as it would be in the wonderful world of India's "non-government organisations" (NGOs) that, effectively, seems to be a phrase used for all and sundry bodies that are not part of the government, whether a one-man charity effort or a 500,000-member caste advocacy group! - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Charity Navigator has viewed the 501(c)3 filing. I'll take their word for it. The article says "tax-exempt libertarian organization" none of which is controversial or needs further documentation. The details that aren't stated are either undisclosed or unimportant. The reference to India is not helpful here. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If it helps at all, the Internal Revenue Service has designated LvMI as a tax-exempt public charity here. Bahooka (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Ludwig von Mises Institute#Views espoused by founders and organization scholars" section be in the article? (Please note, this is related to Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Off topic section on the "Mises.org scholars", which was continued at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Off-topic section: "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars") – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Off-topic (by OP) – they should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete section. Any salvageable bits which discuss an overarching theme of opinions traceable to LvMI as a whole should be reworked to show the general LvMI stance. Individual stances which are not described in relation to the general LvMI stance should not be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete By it's title it is off topic. Also full of WP:OR, with editor-created inferences/impressions synthesized from primary sources. If there are any positions of the institute in there, they could go back in somewhere else. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to something like "notable writings" and then include only those writings made notable because WP:RS have noted that Mises Institute published them and/or where WP:RS make much of the fact that author of some writings is involved with the Mises Institute which influenced the writing. (See WP:Original research on making sure " reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". Also let's avoid POV Wikipedia:Coatrack. User:Carolmooredc 19:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Close RfC without action. This RfC has not defined the problem it is intended to correct. Editing should proceed by discussion of content and policy, not wholsesale surgery. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Leave it be - Obviously the views of members of the Institute are relevant to the Institute. This is doubly so for the views of its founders and leaders. If there is any issue with specific sources or statements, I'm entirely willing to work to deal with them, of course. MilesMoney (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep some, delete some The Confederate stuff should stay because the SPLC RS explicitly attributes "neoconfederate" it to LvMI as an institution (and Lew Rockwell says "we" (presumably speaking for LvMI) basically endorse 'Confederate ideology' in response). Global warming and IPRs should be deleted because no RS characterize these views as institutional. Steeletrap (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all items that do not explicitly discuss the LvMI as an organisation - anything else is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me, but I'm okay with the details expressed e.g. Binksternet's "Delete" vote -- if it's in the wrong section then sure, move it. The idea that you can separate the think tank from the Austrian School opinions isn't okay with me though. 210.13.83.18 (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I am an uninvolved user (apart from commenting on the noticeboard threads in favour of excluding various sources and topic-banning MilesMoney). I don't see a problem as such with discussing works published by the Institute, provided the article does not say that the views in them are the Institute's. It seems to me that the publications of the Institute do fall within the topic of an article about the Institute, and the fact that the views are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute is irrelevant. Would we really say that an article about, say, Penguin Group or Random House could not discuss some of the well-known books they have published, because they represent the views of the author not the publisher? Even more relevantly, would we say that our article on Viking Press could not discuss the controversy over the The Satanic Verses because the statements in it were Rushdie's and not necessarily endorsed by the company? However, Carolmooredc is probably right that references to secondary sources that discuss the writings in the context of the Institute should be found. This shouldn't be difficult - I'm sure lots of the critiques of the Institute refer to things it has published. Finally, SPECIFICO is clearly correct that the Confederate stuff referenced to the SPLC should stay. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Rewrite to balance I suggest changing the title of the section to 'Views', with a subsection 'founders' and another subsection 'leading scholars'. In those sections, the views of the founders should be detailed in a balanced NPV section (per policy WP:WEIGHT) with weight according to what has been noted in external reliable sources. The same for the section on scholars. LK (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(by OP) The exceptions to the off-topic entries are footnotes 29 (SPLC reference) and 33 (a response to SPLC). – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, to be clear, are you advocating deleting the entire section (including the Confederate section, in which an RS attributes these views to LvMI as an institution, not just individual scholars)? Or are you just advocating deleting particular parts of it? Try to be more specific. Steeletrap (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Entire section. Leaving it in, or even as a sub-sub-section titled as a "views of scholars", is the Camel's nose under the tent. The topic of the article is the institution, not people who advocate for or against particular views. Mention of SPLC's criticism of LvMI – as an institution – and a shortened reply from Rockwell, should be incorporated into the criticisms section. Another example, we have Ferrera's comment, which I think is appropriate, in that section. The Ferrera comment does not talk about the views of particular people. If it did, then BALANCE would require the other side of the view, which in turn might lead to non-Mises.org citations from the respondents. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OR to infer that the views of Institution scholars, published by the Institute, don't relate to the views of the Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Huh? wp:OR is a condition/requirement for the presence of material in article space! North8000 (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing, Srich32977. Are you objecting to the title of the section? I don't think that's what you intend. Do you mean all the current content? The section has been in the article for years and the content changes over time. Do you mean that some or all of the current content violates WP policy? If there is consensus to that effect then such content should be removed from the article. What are we deciding here? If there's a principle or policy which defines all the content you propose to remove, that rule should be stated in as specific and operational a way as possible so that the decision, yes or no, can be implemented when the question is decided. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Steeletrap: An example of OR in play is footnote 37 (in the listing above). (A) "Evans wrote this about global warming." (B) "Mises published it." Conclusion/inference: (C) "Whatever Evans wrote is the view of the institution." If we are going to say "this idea represents the views of the institution" then we need RS that directly supports. Merely saying there is a relationship, and therefore publishing something means the institution holds such views, is not sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeltrap, I think that the current wording is whether or not to remove the section. While that does open up other questions (e.g. on retention of some material elsewhere) I think that it's clear that the is not about whether any specified / particular policy mandates removal. If such were the case I don't think there would be an RFC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Specifico: The entire section, as it seeks to restate various ideas of people associated with Mises.org, should go. If there is RS which supports a description of the views of the institution, then such information can go into the text in a more general sense. Why? Because it violates policy when SYN is undertaken and when it strays from the topic of the article. (See my introductory paragraph in the talk, above.) The individual views of people published by Mises.org can be expounded upon in their articles. And the general descriptions of the founders, derived from their WP articles, can be used to describe them. Just because the section has been in the article for years does not excuse continued inclusion if it violates policy. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert]@ Srich32977 - Srich, I didn't say that the longevity of his section header is a reason to keep it in the article. From your response above, it now sounds to me as if you'd actually be OK keeping the section header or something similar but that you believe that we need to decide a test as to when the section's content violates policy. Looking at the current content I think one could argue that the Kinsella intellectual property bit should be removed because nothing associates it with the Institute. Looking at the remainder of the current content, could you identify and state an example of SYN. I'm not seeing it. I don't think that institutions have "views" -- individuals have views. What operational test do you suggest would be implemented if your proposal is adopted? If you don't mind please go back to my first post above and, without reference to the current content of the section -- let's pretend it's all been reverted -- reply to my question so that the result of his RfC can be implemented through a clear, operational, policy-based test. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should explain what sorts of positions the Institute supports. However, it should be based on secondary sources rather than selected articles. For example, the article says that the LvMI has published articles challenging climate science. But so has all of mainstream media. We need a source that explains that this is typical of them, that the Institute pushes these types of views. Otherwise it is just editors forming their own views. Srich32977|S, I do not think rs must say that they are the views of the institution, merely that they are the sorts of views that are typically presented. TFD (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Good points. So "typically presents" is an in-between bar, and I think a good one. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Good point, TFD. On this view, the Neoconfederate stuff would fit (per the SPLC RS and Rockwell's response), but the IPRs/global warming stuff wouldn't, at least not yet. Steeletrap (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If that is the test, it appears that some of the current content of that section would remain in the article? SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Specifico: I'm not sure I can explain it any better that how I did in the talk page sections above. But your comment to North prompts me to ask you: "What content in the section would you keep and why?" (For my part, I think the SPLC citation & Rothwell's response are appropriate to incorporate, perhaps in the criticism section. But I cannot see how any of the remaining 13 citations are appropriate. Am I repeating myself?)

[insert] @Srich32977 I am not talking about which content I would keep or delete. I have no opinion yet. I'm just at the stage of trying to clarify the question. I am trying to understand in operational terms how TFD/North's criterion would apply to the current content. If you are in fact repeating yourself, I'm not likely to understand better the second time. Let's say the entire current section is deleted. What would we then include elsewhere as to the theories and opinions of Mises Institute's Senior Fellows, Mises Daily writers, and the authors of the books vMI publishes? And why? What principle and what operational test do we apply when considering sources which discuss such work? As you know, this Institute, like many similar ones, doesn't issue proclamations which state "its" views. I also note that the WP articles of other Institutes do include discussion of the work of it's employees/members/affiliates/authors. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD: I'm having difficulty in reconciling "just editors forming their own views" and "rs [is not needed] to say these views are typically presented" and "we need a source that they are [pushing climate science] views". IMO we need secondary RS for any/everything that describes the views of Mises.org. (Please forgive my rough paraphrasing.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977, what do you mean, "the views of Mises.org?" Mises Institute doesn't have views. That is why this section is entitled "views of founders and scholars" There is no statement or implication that the Institute itself has "views." Please clarify. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am saying we do not need a source that says "the views of LvMI are x, y and z." But we could say that the views typically presented are x, y and z, provided a reliable secondary source says that. It could be for example that the LvMI has no position on global warming and publishes articles by people who accept the science but provides more space to global warming skeptics. That should probably be mentioned, but it depends on whether that observation has been noted in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Specifico: In a sense what you say is true – but the organization does have its mission statement which says it is "dedicated to ....". So their own description provides some idea of what it is about. But let me ask this: "What were SPLC & Ferrera referring to when they made their criticisms?"

By comparison, we might look at the Democratic & Republican parties. They have platforms which pinpoint their positions. With that in mind, we would/should not go and add comments about the positions that individual politicians of various parties have taken. Or take another (and closer) comparision: the Hoover Institution and Brookings Institution have their mission statements. But it would be unencyclopedic for us to add a section titled "Views espoused by Hoover/Brookings Institution Fellows". (Yes, I know different articles on different organizations have such sections, but that does not mean they comply with policy in terms of staying true to the focus of those articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

[insert] You're just asserting your view with no supporting policy or logic. The Hoover Institution, Cato Institute, and American Enterprise Institute articles are full of statements of affiliated individuals' views and theories. Perhaps you should open parallel RfC's there. If nothing else you'll get a greater diversity of editors to react to your position. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@TFD - That sounds reasonable to me, but it also raises a question. I think it's relatively unlikely we'll find sources which report the authors' survey of all the Mises Institute affiliates' writings and write, in conclusion, that their views are "typically X" or "mostly X". We've seen RS statements that vMI was "full of X" or that it has "a lot of X". What we do seem to find are cases in which independent RS A states that a Mises author states X, and also that RS B states a Mises author states X and also that RS C says a Mises author states X. In such a case, if I understand Srich32977 correctly, I think that he believes we should not report those views because they are the views of individual employees/fellows/scholars and are off-topic for this article about the Institute. That seems incorrect to me. Without stating that it's the "Institute's view", I think these affiliates' opinions should be stated here because when they are stated on the individuals' personal articles the information that a cluster of this view exists among Mises affiliates is lost. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We should be able to find a source. For example a book about think tanks or conservative or libertarian organizations might provide a description of what one is likely to find on the LvMI website. S. Rich, U.S. parties have no control over their membership, but in countries where they do, views expressed by individual members, especially elected officials, do reflect on their parties, and if they express extreme views they are routinely expelled. If they do not then it becomes relevant to their description. TFD (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The "cluster of this view" must be noticed by reliable sources or you are violating SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: With this edit [2] you seem to agree that certain of the "views espoused" are not those of the organization. And you seem to agree that secondary RS is needed, such as what SPLC has provided/opined, that gives us WP:V on what Mises.org's "views" are. Likewise, I'd think you'd agree that "views" from MBA students, self-educated economists, and long-dead Mises himself do not reflect "views espoused by founders & organization scholars." That does not leave much out of the 15 citations I provided above. With this in mind, I hope you will respond in the Survey section with an "off-topic" opinion. Doing so won't preclude future edits to the article in which criticisms about Mises.org (pro & con) are supported by RS.

@The Four Deuces: Likewise, TFD, I read your comments as supporting inclusion of views espoused "...provided a reliable secondary source says that." (Emphasis added.) Indeed, much of my argument has been that we cannot simply say "Mises.org associated scholar said X about Y and thereby imply (Z) that Mises.org is supporting or adopts whatever that person says. It gets worse when non-Mises.org publications are cited, as in LewRockwell.com (items 30, 31, & 32, above) Indeed, we'd really be engaging in OR if one Mises.org person said "this" and another said "that" and presented the differing views without support from secondary RS. With these thoughts in mind, I hope you will post a response in the Survey section. Thanks to you both. – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I challenge you to Google "ludwig von mises institute global warming denial", skim some of what comes back, and then say with a straight face that the Institute isn't associated with global warming denial. MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is. But policy prevents us from original research. S. Rich, I do not oppose reporting what views are typically published on the website, I just want a source. TFD (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I'm not sure what you are saying. We all agree policy forbids OR, so I gather you are responding to MilesMoney's Google challenge. Along the same lines, I think you agree we need secondary sources that comment on what Mises.org publishes. (And by publishes, I hope you don't confine it to their website. They've got podcasts, books, blog material, seminars.) If you agree that secondary sourcing is required, post a comment in the Survey that supports removal of the primary source listing of "views". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, this RfC says should the section be deleted, yes or no. Why instruct editors to give survey responses which don't correspond to the RfC question. You're instructing editors to respond one by one to separate off-topic questions and assigning a different issue to each editor. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Lawyering over the semantics is normal (and generally pointless) for RfCs. Work out the consensus (noting that WP:CONSENSUS only accepts policy-based rationales) and then deal with an awkward details in the aftermath. The consensus here is clear that we need secondary sources that discuss the institute, rather than an amalgam of primary material and sources discussing individuals. There is no opt-out of WP:OR and thus the objections above are mostly non-compliant and can safely be ignored.

The stuff remains in the history. If someone wants to propose reinstatement of anything that was removed then they will be welcome to examine that history, to propose the wording of such a reinstatement and to propose where it might be situated.. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Neljack's comments (at various sections) has prompted me to take another look at WP:NOTFORUM. When we start exploring climate change, etc., and the views that Mises.org associated people say on various subjects, we are improperly providing a forum. As policy reminds us, Wikinews is available for such topics. And Wikinews should be the place were these Mises.org people get to say their piece. Using this article, which is about the institution, as a forum for those topics is against policy. – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neljack doesn't understand that even if all the editors were totally neutral, without secondary sources it is difficult to tell what is the most notable material published and it would be guessing/personal opinion/WP:OR. As it is now, of course, this is just another biased coatrack of POV attack material by extremely biased editors. Maybe I'll rewrite the section in a neutral tone and then take it to the noticeboard if I get the same biased response. Also some of the material in that section is criticism which should be moved down to that section. I think the more appropriate tag is a section neutrality tag: {{POV-section|date=October 2013}} User:Carolmooredc 13:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Neljack: The Viking Press, Penguin, and Random House articles do not have sections about particular books they have published. Consider, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt was one of the first publishers of this book OCLC 422218247, 1955647, but there is no mention of that fact in the article. (Nor, in accordance with WP:NOTFORUM, would it be appropriate for the article.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, the point of WP:NOTFORUM is that WP is not a forum for general discussions of topics, but for creating encyclopaedia entries on them. It's not applicable here. Provided that reliable secondary sources that discuss the writings in the context of the Institute can be found, the material can be included - it's not outside the scope of the article. On the point about publishers, to take an example, Penguin Books discusses a number of books they've published that have caused controversy, including Lady Chatterley's Lover and The Satanic Verses. Neljack (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, we are in agreement - in my comment I stated that you were probably right on the need for secondary sources. Further thinking has confirmed that conclusion. Given the contentious subject-matter and the BLP issues (some of these works, at least, were written by people who still alive), simply relying on primary sources would not be appropriate. Neljack (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Neljack: The citation to Penguin proves the point. Mention is made of the fact that Chattereley & Satanic were published (notable facts/events in and of themselves), but the article does not delve into the controversies surrounding the books or their contents. In this article the addition of the actual views of the LvMI scholars violates NOTFORUM & TOPIC because the focus of the article is the institute – not the Mutts & Jeffs (or their views) who have some "relationship" with the institute. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, if reliable sources discussing the Institute talk about them, then they fall within the subject of the article and can be included. For instance, if certain publications have lead to lots of criticism of the Institute they can be discussed, so long as the material can be referenced to reliable secondary sources. Neljack (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 Please review wp:NOTFORUM and correct your remarks on this page. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

---

In light of the administrator's final closing of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute, which addresses the usage of blog material, etc. in this article, I think it is proper to close this discussion and remove the material. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

In these edits [3], we see Mises.org described as secessionist and as a cult. These descriptions are not supported by the references. While Rothbard might write about secession, that does not make the organization secessionist. Also, Block's mention of "cult" does not support the text. Block says Becker called it a cult, but he does so in an endnote and he does not supply a reference for Becker. Thus, it is improper to say "Block and Becker" described the organization as a cult. Block's piece does not directly/explicitly support this text. – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC) The edits have been reverted. 15:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC) (And this section is the D in the BRD cycle. 16:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC))