Talk:Mises Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Criticism of Institute as "neo-confederate"

This group is apparently regarded as neo-confederate by some, including the Southern Poverty Law Center. This should be mentioned in the article – not that the neo-confederate discription is indsiputable but rather the fact that some have drawn it. Rlquall 18:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added a sentence to that effect, feel free to modify. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ummm ... what exactly is meant by a "neo-confederate group"? The initial principals of the Mises Institute were Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, both of whom were from the northeast, rather than the south. The article on neo-confederate describes the controversial nature of this term in some detail. What are the criteria for including quotations where one group uses an epithet to describe another? - Nat Krause 18:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it may be due more to Thomas DiLorenzo and others. [1]. (Also search on "mises" in the SPLC site to find many references). I think that it is NPOV to report that a notable institute has categorized a group in such a way. We are not endorsing that categorization, only reporting it factually. If we can find a denial from Mises, we should include that too. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert-God knows-but what is a "faculty connection?" Is that an accepted term within academia to indicate that a particular individual is involved with a group whose name strikes fear into the heart of the affirmative action officer? If it is, then ignore my comment. If not, elaborate on the phrase and say that (_some_) Misesians are proud supporters of Southern heritage. Paul 02:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Willmcw and Nat--I agree with both of you--the SPLC is a well known organization and their smears should be exposed to the light of day. Let Wikipedians decide for themselves the merit of SPLC and their accusations. Paul 02:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unnamed "Opponents"

• Opponents of this kind of charge view it as merely an excess of political correctness run amok, and frequently note that such so-called politically-correct and liberal types often excuse or whitewash--hypocritically, some say--the genocides and mass murders committed during the twentieth century by governments they would otherwise view as benevolent. Such opponents note that charges of Neo-confederacy and the like fly in the face of the tremendous amount of anti-socialist and anti-Fascist writing on the Institute's website and demonstrated in their programs, e.g. seminars such as the The Economics of Fascism.

Who are these "opponents" and where have they expressed their views? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • Give me a few hours, I'll get back to it. Nskinsella 01:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • Adding an entry in your blog so that you can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia. -Willmcw 22:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Who knew? I can find other sources, trust me!! haev you ever read Sowell's book about liberals and their intentions? Wikismooches, Stephan Kinsella 22:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • So, the fact that some McCarthyite institution wants to call the LvMI "neo-confederate" with negative connotations (note: I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with neo-conderatism) means that it should be included in an encyclopedia entry on the LvMI? Just becuase some other institution says this? So what. These kinds of smear campaigns shouldn't be in encylopedias. Why not also include all of the things said by numerous other institutions about the LvMI? And why not include responses, so what the article can go on and on about who views who as what. A statement of what the LvMI argues for is plenty enough. -- David J. Heinrich

• Dr. Heinrich has a good point. Palmer's blog is merely a blog. So I will delete references to him too, per Willmcw's policy of not using blogs as the source. Stephan Kinsella 01:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• My bad, Palmer is not listed here, but on the Lew Rockwell site. I'll implement Willmcw's standards posthaste. Stephan Kinsella 01:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • Williamcw: You said, "Adding an entry in your blog so that you can come here and cite it is not the way to write an encyclopedia." But, apparently, referring to baseless smears against libertarians (Hoppe) by someone (Palmer) who's made it an ongoing policy to smear this person, is the way to write an encylopedia? Encyclopedia articles should not be yet another place where campaigns of character-assasination are waged. And that holds for individuals and institutions. -- David J. Heinrich
      • Any notable criticisms should be included. The SPLC, love it or hate it, is a notable institution. If the Mises Institute has a response then we should include that too. -Willmcw 02:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Williamcw: This is not a notable criticism. As for the SPLC being "notable", I've never heard of them before, and their web-traffic is smaller than that of Mises.org and LewRockwell.org by 2 orders of magnitude. Hardly seems significant to me. But accepting that they are, I stand by my assertion that Encyclopedias shouldn't be places where mud is thrown. Absent a response to this rubbish, it is a denigration to the LvMI; it shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged, simply because no-one there has gotten around to responding to it.

Have we established that being a "neo-Confederate" is a bad thing? If so, why? Regarding the SPLC, it is widely known even if you haven't heard of them. In any case, they aren't the only ones making the claim. that the Mises Institute is "neo-Confederate". So, it's sourced information. Add a rebuttal from Mises if there is one. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Williamcw: I don't agree that neo-Confederate is necessarily a bad thing. I'm a strong supporter of secession, and that includes the South. What I think is bad thing is the way in which SPLC uses the term "neo-Confederate", with negative connotations. In their view, neo-Confederate = racist. Most likely, in the minds of many people, the same thing is true. This is because the South had slaves. But the LvMI does not support enslaving anyone. What some there support is the South's secession. And that's not a complete generalization, as Tibor Machan is affiliated with the LvMI and argued against Southern secession. In any event, I think the rebuttal offered by Kinsella is fine.

• ..collectivism, Fascism and related views often alleged as being connected with neo-confederate groups..

According to whom are these views often alleged to be connected to neo-confederate groups? As far as I know, the opposite is true. -Willmcw 05:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Haven't you seen how these PC idiots operate? They lump it all together. If you look at them cross-eyed, you're an anti-semite. Stephan Kinsella 06:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Raimondo

I like Raimondo, but not sure it's accurate to list his as "associated" w/ the Institute. Do you have any objective evidence for this? He may be listed as adjunct scholar, I don't know, but hundreds of people are, so that should not be enough. Stephan Kinsella 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

He's not listed on the site as having any position or even as adjunct scholar. I think they've published some things he's written--but then they've published things by hundreds of people. Stephan Kinsella 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The source is Raimondo's bio on http://www.antiwar.com . - Nat Krause 03:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

According to this he is (or was) an "adjunct scholar" at the LVMI. [2] OTOH, there are over two hundred current adjunct scholars, so that might not be a particularly notable connection. -Willmcw 04:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

table of contents

Willmcw, how do you get the page to display that Table of Contents? I don't understand the code for this. Stephan Kinsella 17:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's automatic when you create headings. -Willmcw 18:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

David Duke

Willmcw, your casual listing of David Duke as another opponent of SPLC is clearly NPOV. Duke is a universally reviled racist. It is gratuitous to add his critique of SPLC. He has no credibility so to add him as a redundant critique of SPLC serves to equate Duke with other critics of SPLC, such as Horowitz. Thereby serving to try to denude all the critiques of SPLC of any force. Thereby trying to subtly bolster SPLC's critique of Mises Institute. Adding Duke to the list of critics of SPLC does nothing constructive or useful, and snidely impugns the other critics of SPLC. It is definitely not NPOV.

What you are doing here would be akin to this: "Exxon is criticized by the Sierra Club, an environmentalist group. Adolf Hitler was also an environmtalist."

Or: "Phillip Morris defends cigarrette smoking as not as harmful as claimed, and as the adult's right. The anti-smoking alliance accuses Phillip Morris of downplaying the risks of smoking. Adolf Hitler, another opponent of smoking, also accused the tobacco companies of immoral profitteering." Would such a comment be appropriate in a neutral encyclopedia?? Stephan Kinsella 20:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Duke is certainly better known than Myles Kantor. Horowitz has a pretty bad reputation in some circles too. Since the point of the rebuttal section seems to be to impugn the SPLC in general (rather than addressing the specific isue of the "neo-confederate" label), any general criticism seems appropriate. Maybe it'd be better to drop the whole section and just deal with the "neo-confederate" matter directly? -Willmcw 21:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

What you are attempting to do has the following effect: SPLC is allowed to be described as accusing the Mises Inst of being neo-confederate and racist; while any rebuttal of SPLC's credibility is diluted by making them all look like racist loons. This is completely inappropraite and unacceptable, and NPOV IMHO. Given Duke's abysmal reputation as an avowed racist--he was head of the KKK for God's sake--it is hardly a "rebuttal" to trot him out as being against you. It is worse than a rebuttal. There is no need to mention Duke here. Horowitz is fairly mainstream and has credibility. Duke does not. This is utterly ridiculous. IMHO. Stephan Kinsella 21:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur that this Duke quote is clearly of little value in the Mises Institute article. In fact, virtually all of this corollary criticism seems to be better suited for the SPLC article. Let's keep the criticism if people think that it is notable enough, but let's not get into a denouement of the SPLC controversy here. DickClarkMises 21:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The denouncement of the SPLC was initiated to provide balance. Leaving the SPLC's criticism (which is completely wrong in the context that they use it, which is that the LvMI is like the League of the South, an organization the SPLC alleges to be racist. Putting that up there without a rebuttal is not neutral at all. For an article to be neutral means presenting both sides of an argument. It seems like some people here think that just by saying, "some have criticized", etc, they avoid issues of non-neutrality. Not true. Such phraseology allows the author to claim to be neutral, or at least prevents knowing definitively what the author thinks. However, it still does not guarantee a neutral article. Would the article be neutral if it listed every nutty criticsm of the LvMI, but no rebuttal?

I concur with Kinsella's criticism of adding a critique of the SPLC from a well-reviled racist. It is not neutral at all. Putting in a "rebuttal" has to effect of saying that the LvMI is in some way affiliated with the KKK. Absurd tripe. -- David Heinrich

I concur completely with Stephen Kinsella on this one. Willmcw's additions/restorations of Duke material serves a clear political purpose of seeking to discredit and/or reduce the Horowitz response. Citing David Duke is transparent in that it serves no other informational purpose to this article than to diminish a more mainstream critique of SPLC, thus seemingly propping up SPLC's viewpoint over others (which could also be said of including the SPLC material in the first place). That's an NPOV violation by its very definition as the NPOV policy can also apply to what content is included as well as the wording of that content. It's also getting WAY off topic from this article (a problem that also seems to be recurring in the wikipedia additions of the main proponent of the Duke section, who should accordingly review and familiarize himself with all wikipedia NPOV related policies and guidelines in order to prevent his repetition of this violation in the future). A simple sentence or two qualifying the fact that SPLC's labelling of groups is controversial in its own right is appropriate for this article, but a multi-paragraph analysis of SPLC containing quotations of a figure of infamy that are seemingly juxtaposed next to others for the purpose of discrediting is not. Rangerdude 21:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: if Duke criticised the SPLC over their attack on this institute, he should be quoted. If he's just bitching about them in general, then he should not. The same goes for anyone else. This article is not about the SPLC and there is absolutely no requirement for NPOV purposes to discredit people that we use as sources. If we were writing about Kyoto, say, and we noted that George Bush had said something about climate change, we would not then quote someone saying Bush was the devil incarnate for lying about Iraq, and claim that that was "balance". It is indicative though who comes to your defence and we should not pretend otherwise. If the devil is your advocate, it's inevitable that some will ask why. -- Grace Note

RfC

It is stated in entry that a group (Southern Poverty Law Center--SPLC) accuses the subject group (Mises Institute) of racism. The entry also notes that SPLC is accused by some groups of making exaggerated or politically motivated claims of racism. A user then adds a comment that David Duke, the white supremacist, also accuses SPLC of exaggerated claims of racism. Is this comment appropriate and NPOV? For more see Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#David_Duke.

Huh? Where does the SPLC accuse the LVMI of racism? -Willmcw 21:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

SPLC lists the League of the South on its "hate groups" page here. Then SPLC here claims:

In the past, Rockwell has praised the electoral success of European neofascists like Joerg Haider in Austria and Christoph Blocher in Switzerland.

Both Rockwell and institute research director Jeffrey Tucker are listed on the racist League of the South's Web page as founding members — and both men deny their membership. Tucker has written for League publications, and many League members have taught at the institute's seminars and given presentations at its conferences.

This obviously insinutates Rockwell is racist and in cahoots with "hate" groups. Can anyone honestly deny that this is what is being alleged? You people here are so concernend about copyright violations. How abuot outright libel? A false charge of racism is probably per se libel; re-publishing a libelous comment is also an act of libel. At the very least it is only good manners to be very careful before contributiong to or perpetuating the accusation that someone is racist. Stephan Kinsella 21:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am very surprised, but SPLC does indeed accuse LVMI and Rockwell of racism. This charge is reported accurately in the article, along with some rebuttals. What's the problem? Wikipedia is not committing libel against LVMI. It is never libelous to accurately report what someone else said. Wikipedia cannot be held legally responsible for reporting someone else's claims - this amounts to an infringement on the site's right to free speech. Rhobite 21:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate, and NPOV, to accompany the David Horowitz critique of SPLC with a similar critique by David Duke? Does it serve any purpose but to try to equate Horowitz (and thus all the critiques of SPLC) with the much-reviled David Duke? I believe it converts a rebuttal into a further critique. Stephan Kinsella 21:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If SPLC's smear of Rockwell and Mises Institute is to be put in the entry, it is appropriate to include reference to criticisms of SPLC's bias and credibility. It is not appropriate or necessary to accompany these criticisms with one by a known racist, in an attempt to weaken the other criticisms of SPLC. That is not NPOV; it is a result of a transparent agenda to bias the article against Mises Institute and in favor of its critics. Stephan Kinsella 21:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Are we talking about the LVMI or the League of the South? Yes, the SPLC calls LOTS a racist hate group. But that is a matter for other articles. The SPLC does not the LVMI either racist or a hate group, that I know of. Those are all strawmen arguements that get away from the simple issue of the SPLC's description of the LVMI as "neo-Confederate". -Willmcw 21:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises, for whom the Ludwig von Mises Institute is named, was a critic of "economic planning". New Deal economics was essentially an American form of "economic planning". Hence von Mises is cited as a critic of New Deal and subsequent Great Society government programs. The evidence suggest that the von Mises Institute published criticism of writings that used SPLC materials here pg.8, with this quote,

"The Information Age also reveals a misleading use of sources. Sometimes, as Steve Fuller (1999, p. 162) of the University of Durham points out, Castells marshals aggregate data without commenting on the shortcomings of comparing summary statistics across nations. In other cases, he accepts the reports of such highly politicized organizations as the Southern Poverty Law Center and treats their statistics as valid without explaining the center’s criteria of classification. This misleads the uncritical reader into accepting methodological artifacts as statistical fact supporting what is a questionable interpretation. And, third, the books offer examples of poor argumentation—usually when the aggregate statistics fail to support Castells’s interpretation. For instance, in volume 2, Castells describes the rise of militia movements and attempts to show (based upon unquestioned Southern Poverty Law Center data) their spread across America. When even those figures do not support his argument, he then throws in the following: “If we consider the Christian Coalition to be a part of the [militia] movement, then Patriots are present in the suburbs of most large metropolitan areas” (vol. 2, p. 95). Castells creates—out of thin air and without scholarly proof—a presumed, if not desired similarity and treats it as accepted fact. This sleight of hand allows him to magically pull rabbits out of a hat that isn’t even a hat."

so the SPLC retaliated by finding references to Abraham Lincoln and statism in LvMI publications and put them on their hate group list. nobs 21:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw wrote:

"Are we talking about the LVMI or the League of the South? Yes, the SPLC calls LOTS a racist hate group. But that is a matter for other articles. The SPLC does not the LVMI either racist or a hate group, that I know of. Those are all strawmen arguements that get away from the simple issue of the SPLC's description of the LVMI as "neo-Confederate"."

Yes, this is indeed beside the point. But if you are going to insist in including the mention that SPLC accuses Mises of being Neo-Confederate, and if it is true that SPLC classifies LOS as being a "hate group" because it is Neo-Confederate, and calls LOS racist, and states that the employees of Mises Inst are founders of and associated with the "racist", "hate-group" LOS, it is very very clear that SPLC is insinuating Mises INst is racist and affiliated, at least, w/ hate groups. Given this, it is relevant to quote critics of SPLC like David Horowitz, so that SPLC's smears of Mises INst are not simply unanswered. Now you seem to be insisting that if the smears of Mises are answered, the answers must be associated some loathesome character, David Duke. This is unfair, and inappropraite. Once Horowitz--a fairly reputable source, arguably at least on the same level of respectability as SPLC, at least--is cited as challenging SPLC's racist charges as being often non-credible, that is sufficient. It is pointless to add yet another source, and one who is an obvious, despised and widely revilesd racist; it strongly implies Horowitz is just another racist like Duke, and thus the criticisms of SPLC should be disregarded. It is not NPOV. The Duke comment shoudl be removed. Stephan Kinsella 21:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that David Duke's comment is irrelevant. Duke does not mention LVMI and has nothing to do with the dispute, except that he has criticized the SPLC (as many racists do). Rhobite 22:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

All of these attacks on the SPLC are what my friend user:Rangerdude calls "ad hominem" attacks and generally removes from articles. Your logic about the insinuation is original research. The SPLC calls some groups "hate groups" and not others. Duke is as notable critic of the SPLC as Horowitz. How about we drop them both? At least there is some connection between Kantor and the LVMI. -Willmcw 22:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: this is ridiculous. Let's look at this honestly. There is an entry about MI. Someone notes that SPLC accuses MI of "neo-confederacy", by which it means racism and hate-mongering. It is perfectly reasonable to note, in this context, that the SPLC has been criticized for its "racist" attacks on others. This helps to make for a balanced article. The reader sees that there is a critic of the subject; but that the critic has its own critics. There is no reason whatsoever to insist that the criticism must come from the victim, or by someone "connected" to them. On the other hand, to insist on adding the criticsim of a known racist is purely politically motived. You should not use Wiki to make a WP:POINT. If the SPLC smear of MI is to be retained, the Horowitz critique should be retained; and the Duke comment should not. It is ridiculous to include a known, universally reviled racist to pretend to defend someone from charges of racism, in an effort to give balance to the article. I am going to fix it. Please do not further politicize this. Stephan Kinsella 01:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

First show me where the SPLC calls the LVMI "racist" or "hate-mongering". Anyway, I'm fine with the rebuttal from a LVMI writer, Kantor. -Willmcw 01:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have already done so. I will repeat it--see below. You may be fine with Kantor, but you have given no reasaon to restricting comments on SPLC from MI itself. That's just an arbitrary rule. So, here is how SPLC calls LVMI racist or hatemongering. First, SPLC lists the League of the South on its "hate groups" page here. And it calls LOS racist, explicitly.

Then SPLC here claims:

Both Rockwell and institute research director Jeffrey Tucker are listed on the racist League of the South's Web page as founding members — and both men deny their membership. Tucker has written for League publications, and many League members have taught at the institute's seminars and given presentations at its conferences.

This obviously insinutates Rockwell is racist and in cahoots with "hate" groups. How can you deny this with a straight face? Anyway, what exactly is your point, or argument? Are you saying that there is no excuse to put up the Horowitz/Kantor critiques of SPLC, unless we first establish some kind of charges by SPLC of MI being racist? What is your point, exactly? Ours is clear. If you post a critique of MI, it's balanced to post criticisms of the critic. But not David Duke, which is a purely politicized move. We should just try to be fair and objective. No? Stephan Kinsella 01:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If you mean "insinuate" then say, "insinuate". They certainly don't "call" LVMI "racist" directly. Since the issue is not whether they are called "racist" or not, quotes about racism are irrelevant. If, for whatever reason, these quotes are relevant, then Duke, a noted commentator on racism, is a valid expert. Duke is no more political than Horowitz. If one belongs then so does hte other. Please don't censor. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly. I believe your motives here are transparent, just as they were on the IP page where you wanted to insist on the copyright comment. This is no place for hidden agendi. Stephan Kinsella 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's no place for any agendas. I'd be hard to argue that faculty and staff of the LVMI don't have a agenda regarding their institution. -Willmcw 02:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: How about we do this: after the mention of SPLC's accusations, add a sentence like this: "Critics of SPLC, however, maintain that the SPLC sometimes exaggerates or wrongfully accuses other groups of racism or of being "hate groups"; more detail at the Southern Poverty Law Center page.Stephan Kinsella 02:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Details are usually available at linked articles, so there's no need to say that. The other part is OK if you change it to "neo-confederate", since that is the charge. Some other editors have made some helpful contributions. I think it is pretty good right now. -Willmcw 03:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

now Gazpacho has vandalized the damn thing. Stephan Kinsella 03:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No vandalized - he removed irrelevant info. -Willmcw 03:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

And added unsubstantiated smears about Francis and Sobran. I have deleted them. They are NPOV, and unsubstantiated, and irrelevant. Stephan Kinsella 03:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: Non-sense. Your putting Duke in there was an unfair attempt to insinuate that those who defend the LvMI are somehow like Duke, a racist. You added that they've accused the LvMI of being neo-confederate (a term they use with racist connotations). Quoting someone who criticizes their labelling of various groups as neo-confederate or racist is *not* an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be saying, "well, you can't believe them, they beat their wives" or something like that, completely irrelevant to the allegation being made. The quote from Horowitz calls into question the legitimacy of claims by the SPLC that organizations are neo-confederate (by which they mean, with thin veil, racist). --Dh003i 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize that Horowitz has no connection to LVMI. I agree, we should remove all irrelevant attacks on the SPLC. If LVMI has officially responded to SPLC it should be covered, but those with no connection to this dispute do not belong in the article. I also support removing the paragraph about how LVMI supports "individualism". It's POV original research to make this claim without a citation. Rhobite 22:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite: Simply because the LvMI hasn't responded to the insinuations of the SPLC doesn't mean the SPLC's junk should go unchallenged. It is an outright smear, and without a something countering it, it destroys the article's neutrality. Either you have the criticism and a rebuttal, or you have neither. But having a criticism which insinuates racism -- especially for anyone who looks for the SPLC's list of "bad organizations" and discovers what they say about them -- is decidedly *non*-neutral. Furthermore, it is not "POV" to claim that the LvMI supports individualism without providing a reference. Do we have to have a reference for every thing we describe them as? That's simply what they support. Go to their home page, they have an article in their recent articles on individualism. --Dh003i 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I think I remember you from K5. Same guy? I was CaptainSuperBoy back then. Silly nickname. Welcome to Wikipedia.. I agree that it would be unfortunate if SPLC's allegations were listed here unchallenged. However here at Wikipedia we are limited to using verifiable information from other sources. We can't craft our own arguments and insert them into articles. Luckily Kantor's response is relevant to LvMI, and it should definitely stay. We should remove the other responses from David Duke, Horowitz, and our own unsourced bit about individualism. It may be well-known that LvMI supports individualism and opposes collectivism, but the article makes an implied argument: Because of this support for individualism, LvMI is against segregation and racist policy. Unless someone outside Wikipedia has made this argument, it is our own original research. Rhobite 23:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yea, same guy from K5. I got tired of K5's non-responsiveness, and of the lack of control of your own journals. Some socialist nutcase who thought he knew something about economics kept on writing idiotic comments in my journal, so I moved to LiveJournal (where you can delete idiots).

Regarding the comments on collectivism/individualism, there isn't an implied argument. Those are facts about the LvMI. The "argument" comes in the readers own mind: anyone who visits the links to the LvMI will realize that it is radically pro-freedom, pro-private-property, anti-State, and anti-fascist/communist. This destroys the credibility of the claims by the SPLC. The descriptions of the LvMI used in the article are easily verifiable on LvMI; I could provide a reference (actually, many references) for each of them; but if every descriptive word has to have a reference, well, I think that's silly.

Concession: Given that way that factual information is presented, it may appear to be an argument. For the purposes of appearances, I've modified the same sentence and moved it to the first section discussing the LvMI.

I still think that the quotes by Horowitz and others calling into question the legitimacy of the SPLC's criticisms of neo-confedericism are relevant. Perhaps there need not be more than one or two, though --Dh003i 23:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This page could benefit from the information about the LvMI's mission and history in Mises.org's About Page --Dh003i 23:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I remember that you're familiar with the LvMI's work. It would be great if you could help expand this article. Rhobite 23:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. It's just a matter of trying to divide it up into the major topics covered, and explain the LvMI's discussion on them clearly.

Over-hyperlinking? Maybe this is a general question, but it seems like this page (along with alot of others) are over-linked to other Wiki articles. It seems to me that things having nothing to do with the LvMI (like 1995 and vice-president) should not be hyperlinked. I realize the reason for this is probably to go along with the way the mind things (e.g., you see one thing, then you scatter off on different paths), but I think it is detrimental to the quality of the article visually, and even functionally (when skimming for links). Most people looking at the article are interested in LvMI-related stuff. If "1995" happens to conjure up their interest, the "search" box is to the left of the article.

This is not the first instance of the SPLC using McCarthyite smear tactics against anyone who questions thier research methods or thier motives. And I beleive that can be verified. nobs 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE - I just observed the following, which when read in light of its description appears to be a personal attack upon editor Stephen Kinsella.

It's no place for any agendas. I'd be hard to argue that faculty and staff of the LVMI don't have a agenda regarding their institution. -Willmcw 02:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC) (edit description by Willmcw: "I don't get paid by the LVMI")

For the sake of civility and with respect to wikipedia's editing guidelines, I would urge the editor in violation to refrain from such personal attacks upon the person of another editor be they direct or by implication. Thank you. Rangerdude 17:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sobran

• In the past, the Mises Institute has sponsored talks by columnist Joseph Sobran, who himself has spoken at holocaust denial conferences.[3][4] Its president, Lew Rockwell, has published Sobran, and alleged white supremacists Samuel Francis and Jared Taylor on his website LewRockwell.com. Christian Reconstructionist Gary North also publishes from time to time on lewrockwell.com.

Enough is enough. Now someone has alleged a Mises writer has spoken at holocaust denial conference, with no source to verify this charge. POV is back up. Stephan Kinsella 03:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem finding sources for that one. -Willmcw 03:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you callit an unsubstantiated claim? He doesn't hide the fact. Check the sources. -Willmcw 03:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Says Sobran

The news that I would be addressing the Institute of Historical Review came to some people as, well, news....Even if the Holocaust had really happened, as I assumed, maybe it should be studied with a critical rationality most of its believers obviously lacked. ...Why on earth is it "anti-Jewish" to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?...In short, the Holocaust has become a device for exempting Jews from normal human obligations. It has authorized them to bully and blackmail, to extort and oppress.'[5]

and so on. Why was this appropriate, sourced, relevant info deleted? -Willmcw 03:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

PS - I don't see any evidence that Francis or Taylor are columnists associated with Mises, but Gary North has his own archive on LRC.[6] So I suggest we restore the text except for the Francis/Taylor sentence. -Willmcw 03:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... I gues I just don't see how relevant it is whether Joe Sobran is interested in revisionist history or who Lew Rockwell publishes on a different website. What does any of this tell us about the Mises Institute? - Nat Krause 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree - mentioning Sobran's alleged interest in revisionist history has virtually nothing to do with the subject of this article. In fact, it appears that the only reason this bit of information was added is an attempt to discredit and disparage the LVMI while propping up the SPLC's controversial allegations with a rather shoddy piece of original research. I would again remind the person who added this information to review wikipedia's NPOV policies and guidelines, of which he is frequently in conflict by way of attempted informational insinuations of this very sort. The recurring nature of these attempts to insert material with a clear POV aim is indicative that he/she should pay closer attention to this aspect of article editing in order to avoid a recurrence of the same problem. Rangerdude 04:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

An academic institution is known for the scholars it associates with. Sobran is much more closely connected than Horowitz, that's for sure. The types of publishing that the institution's founder and president engage in are relevant to that institution's reputation. If the president is a supporter of holocaust deniers then that is interesting. If the president of NYU published a holocaust denier on his website I'm sure we'd report it. -Willmcw 04:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Sobran is particularly close with LvMI—he is, after all, not an economist or a scholar in some other field—but I'm not surprised to learn that he has had some connection to them. However, "has spoken at holocaust denial conferences" hardly sums up Joe Sobran's career; it seems more like we're getting at an idea of "An academic institution is known for other institutions that are associated with by the scholars who are associated with the institution in question". And, no, I don't see why we would report it if someone who associates with holocaust deniers published on the NYT website about something else. - Nat Krause 04:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. It's obviously trying to portray the LvMI as anti-semitic. However, Ludwig von Mises was Jewish. How many "hate groups" are named after Jewish guys? - Joe LaBaw

I agree. Implying that the LvMI is anti-semitic is ridiculous BS. Luduwg von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block -- all Jewish. Willcw is clearly trying to engage in a campaign against the LvMI; the reason, I don't know.

I never said that anyone is anti-semitic or anything esle. I'm just trying to find a reasonable assortment of notable critical issues so that this article, heavily edited by those who work at LVMI or sympathize with it, does not lose all NPOV. As for Sobran and North, they spoke at LVMI events or published on LRC. Either drop all mention of LRC (and LRC authors) or include them. You can't have it both ways. -Willmcw 16:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nat- If we're going to drop mention of Sobran and North then we should drop the mentions of Myles Kantor, Gail Jarvis, and Karen DeCoster, since they are not LVMI faculty either. Their comments don't tell us anything about LVMI. -Willmcw 17:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Kantor, Jarvis, DeCoster, etc. bts are there in response to the SPLC stuff, aren't they?; that's why they're relevant. I still haven't figured out what the relevance of Sobran, North, and Francis are. If there's a criticism in there somewhere, in should be stated. If not, then it should not be hinting toward a criticism; e.g. the views about the Holocaust of people Sobran speaks to are not relevant. - Nat Krause 17:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sobran and North are relevant because they help underscore the SPLC's charge, among other things. -Willmcw 17:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that would explain their position in the article. But, the SPLC didn't charge LvMI with being Holocaust deniers or with being Christian reconstructionists. I don't think it makes sense to lump all these things together. - Nat Krause 17:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur, and thus the attempts of Willmcw to add them would constitute original research among other things. Same goes for the similarly disruptive stunts he's pulling on the same subject at the Lew Rockwell article. Rangerdude 18:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

They may not all be faculty, but they are affiliates of the Institute. Kantor even goes so far as to specifically name his affiliations with LVMI as a reason for responding to Morris Dees' attack on LVMI. In each and every case it is immediately evident that the material pertains directly to Dees and the SPLC, who you insist upon including with the "neo-confederate" allegation. Sobran, OTOH, has no direct connection to any subject mentioned in the article and to highlight his alleged connections to a holocaust revisionism group has even less. It is plainly obvious that his inclusion, much like Duke's, was for one purpose and one purpose alone - to slip in discrediting information against the LVMI, and that is a blatant NPOV violation. Rangerdude 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

DeCoster

• Karen DeCoster writes that Dees and the SPLC "have made zillions from anti-free speech, anti-free press hate campaigns" by making false allegations of racism.[7]

What's our source for this? The link just goes to a list of her articles in the archive. A search on [DeCoster SPLC zillions] brings up zero hits. Also, the gernal rule is that blogs are not sufficient sources. The Myles Kantor, Gail Jarvis, and Tibor Machan references all seem to be to blogs. -Willmcw 04:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • Why don't you try actually reading the links before making harassing deconstructive and blatantly POV-driven demands about each, Will? Scroll down about halfway and you will see the quote I included verbatim. It links to a full article, and unfortunately that link appears to be dead but the part I quoted is right below the article title. Furthermore, you are blatantly misrepresenting the other references as "blogs" when indeed all are opinion columns published on either LewRockwell or Front Page Magazine. Not all websites are blogs, Will, and neither is there a prohibition on using any of these links as sources. Rangerdude 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Dunno about the DeCoster quote--(it appears the original link [8] is now down; a reprint is available here. But curious, how do you know of the rule agains blogs? It seems to me that the arbitrary, artificial line between blogs and "legitimate" publications makes little sense nowadays, especially since there is virtually NO threshold for getting publsihed in many publications, as there are so many, especially some on-line publications. Machan's posts, anyway, are usually columns, even if he puts them on his blog. Stephan Kinsella 04:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites and weblogs, which are not acceptable as sources.[[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] -Willmcw 04:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • Stephan - Contrary to the claims of Willmcw and the carefully truncated section above, there is NO general rule prohibiting blogs on wikipedia. Willmcw is wrong in insinuating that there is - something he has also done repeatedly on other articles where a cited source differs with his own personal political viewpoint. What Wikipedia does have is a guideline on source citation. This guideline has a section against the use of personal websites and webblogs as sources on _factual_ claims. The section generally encourages that all web sources - and especially political ones - be treated with caution due to the well known and widely acknowledged problem that people claim anything and everything on websites. It also happens to have an important caveat, which Willmcw leaves out and appears to be ignoring. Per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Partisan political and religious websites are discouraged as sources by reason of their bias "except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." Citations of articles by LVMI affiliates exhibiting such on political websites such as LewRockwell.com certainly fit under this caveat, contrary to Willmcw's erronious implications. Furthermore, even the source citation guideline for wikipedia is just that - a guideline, not a policy. It represents suggested common editing practices that are generally accepted to "apply in many cases." Guidelines are favored and adherence to them is generally suggested, followed, and recommended for most cases, but they are NOT "laws" of wikipedia and they do not have the force of a prohibition, as an official policy does. That means blogs can indeed be used where the situation deems it appropriate, such as an article about the blog or blogger himself. Rangerdude 05:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about a blog or blogger. Have we decided if LewRockwell.com is relevant to LVMI? A short while ago it was claimed that it is not. -Willmcw 05:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I can understand preferring a source from a non-blog source. But why does an article have to be "from" the subject, in order to be relevant? In fact why must there even be a connectoin? In any event, since Lew Rockwll runs the Mises INst., and also LewRockwell.com, and since some writers write for both, and are therefore associated w/ Mises Inst., then their writing on another site ought to satisfy your implicit "connection" test. Stephan Kinsella 05:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A couple things: 1. The pertinent information here is not WHERE the statements are published but WHO stated them, and in this cases all are sources related to Von Mises and commenting on the SPLC, which has criticized Von Mises. Since the article is about Von Mises, what affiliates of Von Mises say is indeed appropriate when used to indicate their position and thus it is covered under the GUIDELINE caveat about using web sources. 2. Contrary to Willmcw's repeated claims, the regular portion of LewRockwell.com is NOT a webblog. It is an internet magazine that publishes political opinion and commentary pieces. LewRockwell.com does indeed have its own webblog as do many other political sites, but NONE of the cited articles here come from that blog. Willmcw needs to familiarize himself with exactly what a webblog is and is not. A webblog is NOT a term that can be applied to any and every political website containing any commentary, as Willmcw seems to be doing. A webblog is a specific type of website in which an individual author or group of authors publish an informal daily log of their thoughts, opinions, and activities on a uniquely designated site for doing just that. Calling a general political website (or an organization's website, or an opinion commentary website, or a messageboard, or an archive, or even a non-blog personal website) a blog is a clear misuse of the term itself. Rangerdude 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Race card

• As with many political activities involving the SPLC, the group's application of the "neo-confederate" label is controversial and has been described as defamatory. Several Ludwig von Mises Institute affiliates have denounced the organization for making allegations that they deem irresponsible and for playing the race card

Can we have an exact source for an LVMI "affiliate" calling the "Neo-confederate" charge "irresponsible" and discussing the "race card"? I don't see those terms in the citations. -Willmcw 17:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Common Knowledge summaries are acceptable when followed by "links to more detailed articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, or...a citation to a reliable secondary source." In this case, the subsequent links include LVMI affiliates (1) characterizing the SPLC's activities in a manner that can be reasonably summarized to exhibit allegations of irresponsibility on the part of the organization, to wit: "egregious," "defamatory," and descriptions of predatory labelling practices, and (2) criticizing the SPLC's tactics for their use of politicized appeals to race, or what is commonly summarized as playing the race card, to wit: implying that the "Mises Institute seek(s) to restore Hitlerian policies" and allegations of "race hustling" and other similar behavior intended to draw guilt-by-association connections between conservatives and racists. As such, both terms are accurate summaries of the allegations against the SPLC. Rangerdude 18:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's stick with what we can source. As for Wikipedia:Common knowledge, it specifically says that political controversy is a topic that should not be left to "common knowledge".

Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to find Wikipedia:Reliable sources for reported facts, and to cite them.

Certain kinds of claims should most definitely not be left to "common knowledge", or be permanently naked of citations. (including:)

Claims in areas of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy. This includes political and religious ideas.

Please remove your unsourced, POV text, or provde specific sources to back the claims. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Will - You are misrepresenting guidelines as none of the sections you quoted are even pertinent to this case. Per Wikipedia:Common knowledge summaries are clearly and indisputably permitted so long as one of the two aforementioned criteria follow them: "links to more detailed articles elsewhere on Wikipedia" or "a citation to a reliable secondary source." In this case the current wording has not one but both of these things. Since that is all that Wikipedia itself requires, it more than suffices. It should also be noted that your editing activities on this and other related articles are becoming increasingly disruptive and irresponsible. Each are characterized by a common theme of attempting to (1) prop up material from persons and organizations that share your personal political point of view and (2) dismantle, belittle, or smear material from persons and organizations that disagree with your personal politics through blatantly POV guilt-by-association and original research tactics, excessive and unreasonable citation demands that exceed anything required by wikipedia itself, arbitrary, politically motivated, and inconsistently applied source screening, and an all around pattern of generally disruptive, harassing, and deconstructive behavior in violation of both the spirit and letter of wikipedia's anti-disruptive, civility, don't bite the newbies, assume good faith, and WP:POINT policies and guidelines. Given this recurring problem, you should seriously consider taking a break from this article until you can contribute in a more responsible, less disruptive, and more NPOV manner. Rangerdude 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The "detailed articles elsewhere" (race card?) does not mention the SPLC in regard to the LVMI, and as for a "reliable secondary source" - where's that? We haven't seen any source from the LVMI attack the SPLC for playing the race card. It is not "common knowledge" that LVMI faculty do so and it's absurd for you to even suggest it. -Willmcw 19:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Also the term "holocaust denial" needs clarification; David Irving for example, does not deny the holocaust took place. Irving's claim is based on the fact (as Lucy Davidowiz's Holocaust Reader documents) there is no written document with Hitler's signature affixed ordering the Final Solution. Irving's claim, as faulty and crazy as it may be, essentially is Hitler did not order the holocuast or had no knowledge of it, or if he did, was powerless or felt no compunction to intereced in the actions of underlings, or was preoccupied with other things. This POV, while totally crazy and can be discarded, nevertheless does not necessarily make Irving an advocate of genocide, a racist, or a white supremacist. Nonetheless, his name finds its way to Wikipedia's list of white supremacists. nobs 18:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole page is designed as an apologia for the LVMI. The section on criticisms should not be made into a section on the SPLC just because that's the most obvious Internet source. More sample quotes from the LVMI website should be placed in this article. This is a seriously POV page.--Cberlet 23:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC response

The purpose of an RfC is to get input from editors who haven't previously been involved in the dispute. Frankly, those of you editing this page haven't done much to facilitate that process. I'd have to spend a lot of time wading through all this talk and some article edits just to make sure I'd identified the issues correctly, let alone give an opinion. So, based on nothing more than skimming part of this page and part of the current version of the article, I offer these offhand thoughts:

• The article leaves the impression that the anti-Lincoln/pro-CSA material is a major focus of LVMI. If we happen to have much more information about that one aspect than about others, I wouldn't favor creating a "balance" by deleting valid information, but there should be some indication of the role of this issue in LVMI's overall work. (If it really is much more important than you'd expect from an organization named after von Mises, that's all the more reason to clarify the point.)
• I don't agree with the argument that, if SPLC is quoted, then its critics must be quoted. The same logic would lead to quoting the critics of the critics, and eventually there's a section in this article about the invasion of Grenada. Generalized statements that the SPLC is too quick to charge racism where there is none, for financial or other motives, should be in the SPLC article, not here. (If my opinion as a former SPLC donor were notable, you could add me as endorsing that view.) The LVMI article should present notable opinions about LVMI, including comments about LVMI, racism, and Southern sympathizing, whether or not those comments are specifically in response to SPLC. (The section should probably be renamed so that SPLC isn't mentioned in the heading, which gives SPLC too much prominence.) Instead of quoting generalized attacks on SPLC, would it be possible to put the attack in context, e.g., SPLC called LVMI "neo-confederate", one of ___ [insert number] of organizations it so charged? SPLC takes on many adversaries and it would be helpful to know how big a target LVMI is. My impression from quickly looking at the three SPLC links given is that the Wikipedia article's reference to SPLC's "article" is misleading; what I saw was two different pages in which the Institute got about half a dozen paragraphs in the course of a sweeping roundup, plus a page with seven paragraphs about DiLorenzo in which LVMI came in for a few potshots. The Wikipedia article shouldn't leave the impression that SPLC considers LVMI one of the major players here.
• If David Duke said something specifically about LVMI, it should be considered for inclusion. LVMI might not like his favorable comments, but sometimes such unwelcome support is a notable fact that deserves mention, as when a political candidate is found to have accepted a donation from some scurrilous character. If Duke was just blasting the SPLC in general, it shouldn't be included here.

Could you folks, perhaps, come up with two different versions for how this section should read, so that people responding to the RfC could see at a glance what the specific differences are? JamesMLane 23:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

James: This is ridiculous. There is more "information" about the criticism/response of the LvMI for being a "neo-confederate" organization -- which, in the context the SPLC uses it means "racist", although there's another context which doesn't have negative connotations -- than there is actual information about the LvMI. You are right that we don't "need" to present counter-arguments to criticisms presented of an organization; however, that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't. Though I see your point about it expanding into a ping-poing of point-counterpoint. Regarding David Duke, I'm not aware that he's said something specifically about the LvMI, although he has criticized by SPLC. However, let's say if he did say something positive about the LvMI: including it is not neutral. That creates the impression that the LvMI is a racist organization. Just because some nutcase has something to say about the LvMI doesn't mean it's worthy publishing. That holds for the SPLC -- the context in which they use "neoconfederate" to brand the LvMI racist is nutty -- as well as for David Duke. There's also some nutcases who think the LvMI is infiltrated by Jews and is covering up the real truth about the Jews. Should that idiocy also be included in the "criticism" of the LvMI?

Serious criticism is worthwhile. Serious criticism isn't thinly veiled charges of racism, accusations of anti-Semitism against an organization founded in honor of a Jewish man, or accusations that the organization is part of some world-wide Jewish conspiracy. These are all not serious criticisms, and should be ignored. Serious criticisms are scholarly criticisms, published by actual scholars or at least with scholarly quality. An example of a serious scholarly criticism -- although perhaps not applicable to the LvMI -- is Harry Jaffa's criticism of Thomas DiLorenzo's position on secession (see their debate. This is a serious criticism. However, it doesn't quite apply as a criticism of the LvMI, because the LvMI isn't completely composed of pro-secession individuals, nor would anti-secession articles/papers necessarily be rejected (Tibor Machan, also affiliated with the LvMI, criticized DiLorenzo on secession). --Dh003i 07:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

James: I hope Dh003i doesn't mean your comments are ridiculous, because I appreciate your presence here. Sorry the dispute is not presented in a more easily-followed fashion. Generally, I'm at a loss to how to handle this criticisms section. All this focusing on SPLC gives the incorrect impression that a) the dispute is a major focus of the Mises Institute; b) LvMI is an important target of SPLC; and c) SPLC's criticisms are meaningful. I will agree that this item c) is my POV, but there is nevertheless an editorial decision of what to include and what not to. The main thrust of SPLC's critique is that the Mises Institute people are "Neo-Confederates". Now, "Neo-Confederate" is a slur which implies that the target is a no-goodnik, but, if we take its literal meaning as a sympathizer with Confederate secession, then this is not something which Mises Institute historians would deny. It is not a dispute or a controversy. SPLC then proceeds to cite the Mises Institute holding a view of Lincoln ... which they do hold. Again, not a dispute or a controversy.

I'm all for including relevant and informative criticisms of people and organizations in their articles. However, in the absence of more substance, I don't think this SPLC material qualifies as that. Also, the response material is not very encyclopedic, but it would be a shame to leave the SPLC critique (if it can be called that) unresponded-to simply because the Mises Institute chooses not to dignify it with an official response. - Nat Krause 08:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Some quick comments:

• "Balance" in the article: We see here a problem that's encountered on many other articles. The subject of the article has aspects A, B, and C (very important); D and E (somewhat important); and F, G, and H (not huge but still important enough to include in the article). The article is in an undeveloped state; each of these aspects is merely touched upon. Some editor comes along and writes a factual, informative, NPOV section about G. At that point, the article conveys a misleading impression about the subject, because G is overemphasized. The solution, though, is not to delete information. Add the rest of the information to put G in perspective. Dh003i's suggestion in the next section about additional material to be added is perfectly correct. In the meantime, if that can't yet be done, it would not be OK to suppress information. I'd suggest instead including some language to avoid the misleading connotation about the importance of the point that's covered in more detail. "An example of one criticism that's been made...." or "The Institute's primary focus is economics [if that's true], but some incidental comments by its principals about the American Civil War have come under fire." (These are just examples off the top of my head.)
• Presentation: Part of Dh003i's objection might be answered by focusing on LVMI rather than SPLC, as I suggested above (no "SPLC" in section heading). It might be accurate to give that last example sentence I gave above, about "incidental comments", and then follow up by summarizing SPLC criticisms.
• David Duke: Whether a Duke comment about LVMI would be worth including would depend on what he said, what the context was, why it's proposed to be cited, etc. That's why I said including it should be considered. Quoting him might even be to LVMI's benefit. ("David Duke praised the LVMI for opposing school desegration, a position the Institute had never actually taken, but the effect of Duke's widely publicized comment was to hinder the Institute's fundraising." Here again, of course, all "facts" are strictly made up, for sake of an example.) In general, if all Duke said was, "Those people at LVMI are really doing good work" or some such, I don't see why it would be included in the article.
• SPLC as "nutty" as opposed to "[s]erious criticism": Whether they're nutty or serious doesn't matter. The issue is whether the opinion is notable. A mere offhand remark by Duke probably isn't, but the SPLC's criticism probably is, because it was publicized by a well-known organization that has a lot of credibility with many people. NPOV doesn't let us admit some opinions and exclude others based on our own evaluation of how well founded each one is.
• Secession: Your comment about Jaffa illustrates that it might be useful to have a more detailed explanation of the relationship between LVMI and various individuals. Who's authorized to speak for LVMI? Does the Institute have various people who are "fellows" or some such because they work with the Institute on one issue, but who are completely independent on others? Some of these people seem to be more closely connected with LVMI than others are.
• "Neo-Confederate": Apparently this charge by SPLC has not only been publicized but rests on undisputed facts (attitudes re secession, Lincoln). If some people might interpret it one way and some another way, probably the best way to handle that is to retain the wikilink to Neo-confederate and give the full explanation there (I see it is addressed in that article). I can't see censoring the fact about the charge because we fear that some of our readers might misinterpret it. BTW, those of you who edit that article might consider moving it to Neo-Confederate.
• Responses to SPLC critique: We can report facts, including facts about notable opinions. If LVMI has chosen not to "dignify" the criticism with a response, though, that doesn't give us license to say (1) we'll include a section about what we think LVMI could/would say in response if it did respond, or (2) because we don't have an answer to quote and we can't make up one of our own, we'll just suppress the criticism. We can in NPOV fashion give relevant facts -- for example, as I mentioned above, elaboration of the relationship between LVMI and particular individuals, where it may be unfair to impute the individual's views to the organization.

On another subject, I really disliked the way the beginning of the article looked. With the TOC right and the picture at the left, the lead section, which should be the most accessible part of the article, was scrunched into a narrow column between them. At least, that's how it appeared on my screen (Firefox, Classic skin). Without editing the substance of the article, I've arranged the graphic elements at the beginning in the way that's much more common in our articles and looks much better to me. (Sorry the change showed up twice in the PH; I keep getting error messages.) JamesMLane 09:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Just to quickly note: Duke was brought in as part of a suite of critics who had little or no connection to the LvMI that were quoted as making various disparaging comments about the SPLC. That whole group has been replaced so I think that Duke, Horowitz, et al are no longer current issues. -Willmcw 10:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, also, for your opinions, James. Regarding the SPLC thing, you say, ""Neo-Confederate": Apparently this charge by SPLC has not only been publicized but rests on undisputed facts (attitudes re secession, Lincoln)." This gets to the whole issue of including the SPLC information. It does rest of undisputed facts. Therefore, there is no "charge" here, no accusation. Where is the dispute or controversy? However, to describe it as a "charge" implies to the reader that there is some kind of accusation or controversy afoot. Further, the term "neo-confederate" is usually used as a political epithet, to imply that the person described is bad. Are we not allowed to take that kind of language issue into account when we are writing NPOV? We certainly are. - Nat Krause 10:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

By sourcing the term "neo-confederate" to notable critics we are NPOVing it. We are simply reporting on the dispute, not taking sides. -Willmcw 13:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Willmcw. There's certainly a widespread (and therefore notable) POV that equates nostalgia for the Confederacy with racism. That's the origin for the flaps in several Southern states about use of the Confederate flag. As for "charge", please don't attach much weight to my specific words. Note my caveat that I haven't really gotten into this whole dispute -- I haven't read all of your comments, for example -- and that I was just dashing off a first draft for whatever it was worth. I think the distinction you invoke could easily be conveyed in the article. It would be something along the lines of "Several people affiliated with LVMI have commented on topics relating to the American Civil War in ways that are seen as sympathetic to the Confederacy, such as support of a right of secession and criticism of some of Lincoln's wartime actions as dictatorial. These positions have been characterized as "neo-Confederate". Because the Confederacy fought, inter alia, to preserve the slave status of African-Americans, some critics such as the SPLC consider such neo-Confederacy to be a form of racism." Again, I'm not pushing those specific words. The point is to report what we know and not to sit in judgment of whether the LVMI is anti-black or whether the SPLC is anti-free speech. JamesMLane 17:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That's all fine, but there is a deeper agenda at play here than simply sourcing the term "neo-confederate" to notable critics. In reality what we have is one notable critic - the SPLC - that is VERY controversial in its own right for engaging in the very same type of criticism that is being noted here. To quote them as authoritative without any qualification of their own notoriety (as may be easily achieved through the quotation of responses to the SPLC by LVMI affiliates) gives undue non-neutral credence to their POV. It also severely imbalances the article to have the largest paragraphs in it, and indeed the majority of the text, devoted entirely to the SPLC's charges. Mention them, yes. But don't dwell on them alone and when mentioning them allow equal time to LVMI-related responses that note the controversial nature of the charge. As to adding Duke et al and other unrelated references to Sobran and implications anti-semitism etc., the chief proponent of these additions is reminded that original research is prohibited on Wikipedia and that these additions, even if made to demonstrate a point of some sort, are generally disruptive to Wikipedia and also frowned upon (see WP:POINT). Rangerdude 17:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Quoting SPLC is no different than quoting "some people say"; the source of criticism needs proper qualification. nobs 18:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

When I'm adding a reference to the SPLC to an article I usually add the description, "a controversial anti-hate group". I've seen some editors remove it, insisting that it isn't controverisal. But on the whole it seems to be suuffificient to satisfy most editors. If we want to challenge the SPLC's credentials on evaluating neo-Confederate groups then the SPLC article would be the best place to do that. -Willmcw 23:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

No objection to,

a controversial organization that calls itself an "anti-hate group" nobs 01:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Edit Changes and WHere to Go From Here

I've shortened up the section on criticsm/response. It was getting way out of hand, and was becoming longer than the actual information on the LvMI's positions itself.

I suggest we start working on what the LvMI actually does: the books, journals, articles lectures they publish online; their conferences and topics; the views expressed there; etc. I'd also suggest we avoid lengthy quotes. Lenghty quotes, in my view, decrease article quality. The various views expressed at the LvMI should be expressed tersely, in summarized (non-quoted) fashion. Long quotes distract from the flow of the article. As someone knowledgeable about the LvMI, I will get to it; but it's 3:30 in the morning here, so not now. --Dh003i 07:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should add more about the LVMI's positions. But please do not censor criticisms of it. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms will not be censored where they are sourced, balanced, factually portrayed, and in general keeping with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Many of the "criticisms" you have added, however, are unrelated to the topic of this article, are portrayed in an unbalanced POV manner, or constitute original research. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia for POV reasons or to prove a point. WP:POINT. Thank you. Rangerdude 17:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've again shortened the criticism section, to make it a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article. It is absurd to have a WIki entry where we're given more information about the SPLC's criticism of the LvMI than the LvMI itself. This apparently is what Willmcw wants. I've also moved the information on the Claremont Institute and CATO Institute's disagreement with the LvMI to "CRITICISM", where it belongs. I've added a criticism of LvMI senior faculty member, DiLorenzo, by Harry V. Jaffa (Lincoln scholar) by linking to a Jaffa-DiLorenzo debate. Brief description of Clarement and CATO criticism should be added, and perhaps better link for Jaffa's criticism (preferrably to article of his own).

If you're going to include this quote: "Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism," you ought to note that Rothbard was Jewish and the word "imposed" is taken out of context, as it actually refers to the constitution imposing female suffrage on states.

Official policy

• But the Mises Institute itself does not have an official position on ... In fact, some of its scholars are...

Does the Mises Institute have official policies on any issues? If so, are scholars expected to conform to them? Thanks, -Willmcw 00:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand this question. But the point is an earlier version said the Mises Instite was against immigration. This implies the Mises Insitute has a position on immigration. It does not. Some of its leading scholars believ one thing, some another. It is probably similar on other isseus, such as abortion, which also divides libertarians, just as it divides normal people.

This article has become a disgrace. If it is allowed to remain in its current state, as basically a biased smear piece against Mises Institute, I am writing off this whole Wiki thing as a failure. Stephan Kinsella 01:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is: Does the LvMI have any official positions? Is there a position statement? If there are no official positions on any topic, then it is odd to mention that only in reference to one issue. If there are some official positions, we should summarize them. -Willmcw 01:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned it b/c in a previous version someone wrote, "The libertarian Cato Institute has differed with LVMI on political issues such as immigration. Cato tends to advocate an open immigration policy whereas LVMI favors border restrictions." Now, this has apparently now been removed. I had stated the Mises Inst has no official positions, to counter this tripe. Do what you want to with it to clarify it, Willow. Stephan Kinsella 02:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)::::

Relax. It's a tough world out there, and not everyone thinks the LvMi is the bee's knees. But if we are including more actual material from LvMI scholars and eliminating factually false or dubious material then it is a better article. Wiki is not supposed to be a place to put advertisements for your favorite groups and individuals. Pro and con...as long as it is factual, balanced, and NPOV. I have bneen adding material that is critical because instead of editing criticisms that are not accurate, fans of LvMI have been simp-ly deleting them. Not OK. But we can work collectively to write a better article. Of course, that's an affront to radical individualism, but you have to appreciate the irony, no?--Cberlet 02:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree everyone here is working to make the article better. The "fans of LvMI" have been trying to prevent politicized use of this entry to unfairly slander the Institute. The others are using every chance than can to color them in a bad light--a political motive. It is very obvious. And your comment that working "collectively"--what some might call cooperation--is incompatible with individualism is utterly confused and mistaken. Individualism is not hostile to cooperation; far from it, they are intimiately related, and you cannot have one without the other. Stephan Kinsella 04:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There are some here who are not "fans of the LvMI", who are however working constructively to make this article better, and not misrepresenting the positions of the LvMI or trying to make political points. E.g., Rangerdude. It is a few people here (who's actions speak for themselves) who have been actively "working" to make this article mis-representative and of poor quality. -- --Dh003i 04:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not question the motives of other editors (or make ridiculous claims about them). We're here to write encyclopedia articles, not to engage it personal disputes. Thanks. -Willmcw 05:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

When certain editors engage in plainly disruptive editing practices such as the many aforementioned attempts to slant this article or load it up with hidden criticisms, irresponsibly mined quotes from a highly partisan and politicized source such as the SPLC, and guilt-by-association David Duke references aimed at nothing more than discrediting the LVMI, that disruptive behavior - and messages such as those found above urging that it be avoided - become a pertinent and proper object of discussion for the article on its talk page. If you do not like others objecting to disruptive edits then it is best to behave yourself and abstain from them in the first place, Will. Myself and many others have suggested this to you in calm and reasonable terms many times with little result, hence the problem and recurring discussions of it. Given these many notes, I trust that you will conduct yourself more responsibly in the future. Rangerdude 05:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have personal comments addressed to me please place them on my talk page. They do not belong on article talk pages, which are here to discuss the articles. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

This article is currently being worked on by approximately half a dozen different editors, of whom many have made nearly identical objections to the inappropriate and disruptive nature of your editing behavior here. At the present that disruption is recurring despite multiple calm requests from more than one editor that you stop it and multiple suggestions to you to review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you are in conflict with. It is also presently one of if not THE major holdup to producing an encyclopedia quality article on the subject of the LVMI here on wikipedia. Given these circumstances, anything that needs to be said about ongoing disruption and the need to curtail it is entirely appropriate for this forum. The primary source of the disruptive edits is again reminded that the surest way to curtail subsequent discussion and complaints about those edits is to abstain from the very same problematic editing practices in the first place and in doing so review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with a mind to making any future contribution he has to offer more constructive than has generally been the case here. Thanks. Rangerdude 06:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy Work

Some of the editors here have been doing sloppy work. This is not an article about the SPLC, it is an article about the LvMI. Whoever keeps on adding more and more stuff from the SPLC, that should go on the SPLC's page, not the LvMI's page. The thrust of the SPLC's criticism of the LvMI can be presented briefly and clearly, and then move on (to other criticisms). Furthermore, some misrepresentations and unreferenced quotes are used by the SPLC in quoting Rothbard (on women/voting in the 1800s). They SPLC article linked to provides no references on the quotes of Rothbard. These quotes are being used in the section describing the LvMI's positions. When discussing the position of affiliates of the LvMI, either we should actually paraphrase/summarize those positions themselves (going to the source) or quote them. We should not misrepresent those positions, and should not represent the positions of those affiliated with the LvMI by quoting other organizations quoting or describing their positions. That is simply sloppy and lazy.

If you are going to describe the positions of the LvMI using someone's description of them, that person should be an authority on the positions of the LvMI. Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas DiLorenzo, Joseph Salerno, Jeffrey Tucker, and other senior faculty members are authorities on the positions of the LvMI. The SPLC is not an authority on the positions of the LvMI. As such, I'm deleting those quotes from the SPLC on the LvMI under the section describing the LvMI's beliefs. The SPLC is not an authority, and does not provide quotes; in no way can that be said to accurately represent the positions of the LvMI. Whoever put that in there can't make an argument for it, for those very reasons.

What it really amounts to is attempting to disguise a criticism of the LvMI in the form of a description of their beliefs. Criticisms should go under the section on criticism, not the section describing the LvMI's "positions". However, as this is not presented as a criticism of the LvMI, but as the LvMI's actual position (without references anything by anyone from the LvMI), I will delete it.

A general note: the LvMI is not like some other organizations, such as the ACLU. It does not have "official positions". This is because it is not a political lobby group with a specific agenda. It does have some braod agendas (liberty, freedom, property, peace, free trade, individualism, Austrian economics), but it promotes them in the battle of ideas. It truly illustrates the problems with aggregate thinking, and acting as if abstract concepts (organizations) can act. There are substantial disagreements within the organization on various issues. Hans Hermann Hoppe is critical of immigration (except for very restricted forms), Walter Block supports an open-borders policy (with some restrictions). Rothbard, Block, Hoppe, Huelsenbeck -- all support a 100% gold standard, with no fractional reserve; Selgin and White support "free banking". Some support anarcho-capitalism, others minarchy, others constitutionalism. Furthermore, there are many things on Mises.org that do not represent the broad position (or a possible position) of the LvMI, but rather that of their adversaries. They've published a debate been neoclacisist Bryan Caplan and Austrian Walter Block. They published article by Paul Craig Roberts criticizing the argument for free trade.

I would suggest that those who do not have the knowledge to or who are unwilling to do the research to adequately (that is, fairly) represent the positions of the LvMI and the diversity thereof, cease from editing this Wikipedia article (except for grammatical/style elements). --Dh003i 04:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've consolidated some paragraphs, added some references to various positions mentioned, and deleted the sentences discussing the review of the Brimelow's book. This is not an article on Brimelow, hence reviews of his book are irrelevant. Furthermore, this isn't an article on the positions/opinions of the WSJ, thus it is also irrelevant from that perspective. As it is not a criticism of the LvMI specifically, but a review of a book that the LvMI reviewed more favorably, it is also not relevant in the criticism section. Were that criteria to be used, this article could include the positions of anyone who disagrees with the LvMI's articles on anything, even when not criticizing those articles specifically. Thus, it could expand without limit or reason. --Dh003i 04:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur with your general sentiments, and in its forms up until very recently the entire bloated SPLC section has been generally disruptive to the article as a whole. The editors who have been relying upon the aforementioned SPLC materials as primary sources for the article should be cognizant of the referencing problems within those sources mentioned above by Dh003i. They should also take a moment to review Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which plainly states "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." The SPLC is indisputably a "partisan political source" with material published on an "extreme political website," and the LVMI is about as far from a "like-minded group" from the SPLC as one could physically get. According to this provision, using the SPLC's characterizations of LVMI's beliefs and opinions as a primary source of information on LVMI's beliefs and opinions would plainly be inappropriate. Rangerdude 05:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, so are you saying that the LvMI and its faculty are also "partisan political sources" that shouldn't be used for other articles? -Willmcw 06:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I said no such thing, Will, and it would be dishonest of you to claim otherwise as that would be a straw man argument. Per the guidelines, partisan sources are perfectly legit when they are used to exhibit the views of that same source. The problem emerges with quoting a partisan source as an authoritative and unbiased reference for factual material about the beliefs of another, and that is what you were doing when you dug up a bunch of SPLC articles as "sources" on what the LVMI allegedly believes. Rangerdude 06:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, the underlying problem is your view (expressed in the preceding section) that dismisses "a highly partisan and politicized source such as the SPLC". The issue is whether SPLC's view of LvMI is a notable criticism, not whether it's a sound criticism. SPLC's views about LvMI have a legitimate place in this article. This isn't some left-wing bias; the articles on the ACLU and ACORN have sections presenting notable criticisms of those groups. For purposes of presenting such a criticism, the SPLC's website is certainly a valid source, although any assertion as to a matter of fact that's disputed should be attributed as coming from that source. The real problem posed by the handling of the SPLC's criticism is the one I mentioned above, in which volunteer participants (whose priorities can't be set by a managing editor) have contributed much more material about one aspect of the subject than about others. The solution is not censorship, but to develop the other aspects as well. The last few weeks have seen the addition of considerable information about LvMI's goals, how it sees its activities, etc. Continuing to improve the article that way is the way to deal with any perceived overemphasis on one aspect, namely SPLC's criticism.

Further on the subject of the improvements: Stephan, before you "writ[e] off this whole Wiki thing as a failure", consider this diff, which shows how the article has changed so far in July. Clearly, the article is much better now than it was at the start of the month. The SPLC criticism is presented in more detail, but so are such subjects as the Institute's history, ideology, activities, and important people -- including yourself. It will get better still. Even as it stands now, though, is there any general-interest encyclopedia that has a better LvMI article than this one? JamesMLane 07:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Wikinfo. Or if they don't,I could copy the current one, take out the dreck, and rely on SPOV. No? Stephan Kinsella 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

James - I believe you are misunderstanding my comments on this subject. I do not object to mentioning that the SPLC has called the LVMI "neo-confederate" etc. with a source so long as proper designation of their allegation through LVMI-affiliate responses is also given for balance and neutrality. That is legitimate factual material ABOUT what the SPLC has said of LVMI, and how LVMI responds. I do object however to writing a section explicitly identifying itself to be about "what LVMI believes" etc. while drawing the characterizations of LVMI's beliefs almost entirely from critical SPLC publications. This is inappropriate because the SPLC is a highly partisan political source, and as such is not a neutral reference for what LVMI believes. It is this latter type of use for partisan sources such as the SPLC that Wikipedia's guidelines explicitly discourage. In short, we may link to the SPLC's labelling of LVMI as "neo-confederate" etc. (and to LVMI rebuttals) in the section about criticisms, but we should not write the section about LVMI's beliefs based on the characterizations of them given by a non-neutral hostile and extremely partisan political source such as SPLC. Rangerdude 07:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Stephan: I'm not familiar with the details of Wikinfo's operation. I just checked the site and found exactly what I expected -- no article about LvMI, and an article about von Mises himself that's vastly less informative than ours. My point, though, isn't to throw mud at Wikinfo. I'm saying only that wikis are probably different from what you're used to, so they take some getting used to. Don't be too quick to write the idea off. After all, if you decide to decamp to Wikinfo, you'll still have to put up with "this whole Wiki thing".

Rangerdude: Certainly primary sources should be preferred whenever possible. Here again, though, I think some of what you're complaining about is just how the article happened to grow. An editor who's looking at the SPLC report can give the Wikipedia reader more information by adding some content derived from that report, if the subject isn't already covered in the article. Would it be better if the editor spent additional time to find a more authoritative source? Yup. If the volunteer editor chose not to do that, should his or her contribution be deleted? Nope. As an individual editor, you don't have to make the article perfect; you just have to make it better. Other people who don't like the sourcing should simply do the work to obtain better sources. As to specifics, some of what you removed was legitimate reporting of opinions. You removed the statement, "They [SPLC] say that the LVMI favors an elitist society . . . ." That's clearly SPLC's opinion about LVMI, not purporting to be an objective description of LVMI's positions. Whether that particular comment merits inclusion in the article is another question, but it's not the sort of thing that the guidelines discourage. JamesMLane 08:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you understimate the sourcing problems. Because the SPLC article didn't provide sources, we don't really even know if Murray Rothbard said that. In any event, disguising criticisms from another organization (the SPLC) as representative of what the LvMI's positions are, does not make the article better, but rather makes it worse (by misrepresenting positions). By this kind of loose criteria, some of the nutty things anti-Semites have said about the LvMI would be included in a description of the LvMI's "positions". Criticisms should be placed in the criticisms section, and not disguised as statements of the positions of the LvMI.--(128.151.71.19 ) 12:13, 25 July 2005

I have added the cite to the Rothbard quotes, (which a google search could have found), and made the Paleoconservative section a section on "controversies." The LvMI fans need to take their work here more seriously. In the real world, groups that take controversial political positions should expect to get criticized. If there needs to be more balance with material representing the viewpoint of LvMI then by all means add it. But please stop deleting material that a simple Google search can track back to the LvMI website. It's tacky.--Cberlet 13:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to take your work more seriously. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to do your work for you. What is tacky is the insistence of some people on mixing up criticisms with statements of the LvMI's positions. It is entirely unacceptable to use a source from the SPLC to describe the positions of the LvMI. As the SPLC is not an authority on the LvMI, and as they are critical of it, anything they have to say propertly belongs under the criticism section, not a section describing the positions of the LvMI. Cut the BS. On top of that quote not having sources to Rothbard, a criticism of the LvMI was being disguised as a statement of what their actual positions were.

If certain editors are going to try to disguise criticisms in the form of descriptions of the positions of the LvMI, they shouldn't expect anyone else to do their work for them and fix it for them. As is, the content was entirely inappropriate in the section describing the LvMI's positions, and thus deserved to be deleted.

Furthermore, as noted before, criticism isn't being censored. However, this is a page about the LvMI, not about the SPLC's criticisms of it. A summary of their criticism can be presented and referenced, and then we can move on to criticisms from other organizations. I I again will ask those who can't be bothered to do the research to adequately represent the positions of the LvMI, or who are actively trying to distort their positions in the sections describing those positions, not edit here. -- Dh003

Sorry, but the above is a total misrepresentation of Wiki policy on editing articles. It is quite common for statements by a group (or from a person affiliated with a group or from the group's website) to be intermixed with criticisms of the group. The issue here is accuracy and NPOV. If you want more about LvMI, please go ahead and insert it, and stop complaining that your iconic ox is being gored by a rhetorical cyberpen.--Cberlet 15:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Does the new subheading configuration I edited help?--Cberlet 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You partially misunderstood my point, which is that the section I originally deleted was presented as if to be representative of the position of the LvMI, when it was actually someone else criticizing them. That's deceptive. My criticism regarding mixing criticisms in with the sections describing the positions of the LvMI is largely structural: it is more organized, and more clear, to put criticisms under a "criticism" section. This makes the article more useful (especially when skimming). It also avoids any confusion. Just because something "can" be done via policy doesn't mean it's the most practical thing to do (for article quality).

My other point is that it was getting ridiculous, the enormous length of the criticism section relative to the actual section describing the positions of the LvMI. Criticism, yes. Summarize, reference, and move on. We don't need to quote large blocks of what the SPLC says (and why is it their criticism is so special?) and clog up the article with that. The criticisms of the SPLC can be summarized in one or two (or three) sentences, and linked to. This is not "censorship". It is practicality. The way things were going, it was getting to the point where you might as well just paste the whole SPLC article in here. -- Dh003i

If you believe that content is "entirely inappropriate in the section describing the LvMI's positions", it does not deserve to be deleted. Move it to another section, create a new section, create a new subsection, retitle the existing section, or whatever seems appropriate. If instead you delete information, expect to be accused of censorship. JamesMLane 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the quotes being criticized on the page are now far more extensive than what was in the SPLC article, and they are directly cited to the LvMI website. The fact is, more than just the SPLC consider the MvLI to be elitist, anti-democratic, and tolerant of racism, sexism, and more. The criticism on this page is actually quite mild considering this reality. This all started when fans of LnMI began to simply delete criticism, or claim it was not properly cited. This situation has been created by the same people who can fix it--fans of LvMI--who should stop endlessly complaining and get to work adding more substantative material about LvMI into the article to balance it. --Cberlet 16:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not criticizing the quotes as they are not, although I question the importance of some minor position taken by Rothbard on an issue. Missing the forest for the trees. I was criticizing the quotes as they were (which were the one's I deleted), because they were misrepresentative and disguised as statements of the position of the LvMI, when in reality they were not. Criticism should be stated as such, and Wiki editors should not construe the words of others on purpose to make (in this case indirect) quotes of them seem like criticisms.

If not for the disruptive and misrepresentative behaviour of various editors, those with the knowledge could spend more time adding substantivie material about the LvMI. The hysterial manner in which any attempt to condense criticism is accused of "censorship" makes operating more difficult. Unlike some of the lazy editors here, I do not think it is a good idea to explain the positions of the LvMI by throwing in numerous haphazardly selected quotes, but rather by carefully explaining various broad topics dealt with, and the diversity of opinion within the LvMI on them. I cannot possibly do this as rapidly (thus I cannot possibly balance out the article) as certain frantic editors can add lengthy quotes from critics.

Whenever I have attempted to abbreviate and condense criticisms to be more practical for an encyclopedia article, I've been jumped on by those same editors for "censorship", even when likewise removing responses from the LvMI or associates to those criticisms.

Murray Rothbard

This criticism: "Critics also see a thread of sexism in the work of Rothbard, who argued that meddling Yankee women "imposed" a woman's right to vote on the rest of society" takes the Rothbard quote completely out of context. Anyone familiar with Rothbard's decentralist beliefs could tell you that by saying "...before a constitutional amendment imposed it on the rest of the country (source: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_1.pdf)," he was refering to the federal government imposing something on the state governments and was not making a value judgement regarding female suffrage itself.

Also, just because the SPLC claims something does not mean the claim merits a place in an encyclopedia. For example, this claim: "The Southern Poverty Law Center makes claims of other bigotry in the article, noting that Rothbard claimed it was primarily "Jewish women, after raising funds from 'top Jewish financiers,' [who] agitated for child labor laws," and that the "dominant tradition" of these women activsts was lesbianism," does not belong in an encyclopedia because the anti-semite bigotry charge is obviously false as Murray Rothbard was Jewish. At the very least, that quote must be accompanied by a disclaimer noting that Rothbard was Jewish. - Joe LaBaw

After reading the primary source - the uncited Rothbard essay (PDF) - I deleted the smear. Rothbard is not blaming stuff on "meddling women," he is expositing on the 19th century pietist/progressive movement in a historical article entitled "Origins Of The Welfare State In America." He non-judgementally and factually describes women involved in the authoritarian movements against alcohol, prostitution, child labor, and so on. Hogeye 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that the criticism never occured? Or that the criticism is, in your opinion, not properly founded? If it is the latter, then that is not a good reason for removing it. If it is wrong then there is probably a Rothbard defender who has rebutted it. Let's find that rebuttal and add it. -Will Beback 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research, unnamed critics, and partisan sources

I have removed a massive rewording of the "controversies" section by User:Cberlet for several reasons and request him, or any other editor favoring these changes, to propose them here first and develop a more neutral, balanced, and appropriate manner of addressing them. As it stands there are several problems with the additions that were made by this user:

1. Anonymous critics - there were multiple references to unnamed "critics" of LVMI in the plural, and attribution of specific allegations to these "critics" despite their anonymity. Such anonymity is a type of "weasil word" and per Wikipedia policies and guidelines it is discouraged. It is also a violation of WP:NPOV as the anonymous "critics" are all used to attack LVMI with no counterbalance. In reality all of the material added seems to come from but one critic, which is already mentioned in the article and which is a highly controversial and politicized source in its own right - the Southern Poverty Law Center. As has been thoroughly noted and discussed above, it is appropriate to include references to the SPLC's allegations against LVMI, however (1) this should not dominate the bulk of the article, (2) this should be done in a balanced manner permitting LVMI rebuttals of the allegations, and (3) the general use of the SPLC as a source for factual information should be treated with extreme caution as is required of partisan political sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources

2. Original research - the additions contain original research including lengthy hand selected excerpts of Murray Rothbard quotes among other things, all seemingly chosen to bolster the allegations of the aforementioned anonymous "critics" (who are in fact one single highly partisan critic, the SPLC). This particular research constitutes the use of primary documents to form an "original argument purporting to refute or support another idea," the idea being the SPLC's allegations. It is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy under WP:NOR.

3. Off topic material - To bolster the SPLC claims about Peter Brimelow's book that were added as "unnamed critics" the editor drew in unrelated and off topic attacks on Brimelow by National Review and a newspaper. If anywhere, these belong on an article pertaining to Brimelow. They are off topic to the LVMI though because they do not pertain directly to LVMI - only to a book that one of its publications reviewed favorably.

4. Formatting - the "controversies" section was reformatted in a non-neutral way by grouping a neutral section on "paleoconservative themes" at LVMI into the "controversies" section. This again violates WP:NPOV as it automatically characterizes/mischaracterizes those paleoconservative themes as if they were somehow inherently controversial and portrays them in a negative light.

Given these problems, I removed most of the materials that were added by Cberlet on this subject and restored a more neutral formatting. Upon consideration of the above and review of the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he or any other user is invited to propose the addition of materials here on the talk page, albeit in a wording that complies with Wikipedia's policies and NPOV mandate with an aim to adding them if and when a neutral version emerges that can obtain reasonable consensus among other editors, as Wikipedia policy also mandates. I am hopeful this will help to resolve some of the difficulties and look forward to any contributions along these ends. Restoration the problematic edits in disregard for the aforementioned policies, however, will be met with immediate reversion. Thanks - Rangerdude 18:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. This is absurd.--Cberlet 19:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet - there's no need for hostility or rudeness. Wikipedia operates on a principle of consensus and your edits should conform to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Many of yours did not as I have detailed above. Due to these problems I have politely asked you to post your desired additions and any pertinent revisions of them here on the talk page so that they may be worked on and a solution reached in compliance with WP:NPOV and all related source use guidelines. Simply throwing a fit and refusing to reconcile standing problems with the aforementioned edits despite explicit requests to do so is not in the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia, so I strongly advise that you approach this in a more cooperative manner than has been exhibited to date. Should you do so your contributions and collaboration will be much appreciated. Thanks Rangerdude 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, you can't complain about the amount of attention paid to the criticism by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and argue that it is not properly cited, and then delete the text I write that adds the actual cites, that are accurate and trace back to material posted on the LvMI website. This is just censorship.--Cberlet 20:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet - please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and do so as the official Wikipedia guidelines require of you. Making allegations of censorship is uncalled for when standing NPOV and policy objections exist to a major addition you made, and when you have been repeatedly and politely invited to propose, discuss, and revise that addition on the talk page for the purpose of bringing it into conformity with encyclopedia standards. I have been perfectly polite and reasonable toward you, yet have received nothing but hostility in return. Wikipedia operates on consensus. I reverted your edits again as the minor change you made to them consisted of little more than adding a meaningless header while reposting the remainder - with all of its aforementioned problems - in near verbatim form. That is why I have asked you to propose the section here for the purpose of making a collaborative revision. I am patient enough to permit you another opportunity to do this, but in light of the hostility you have displayed despite these multiple attempts, I am prepared to pursue dispute resolution against you in short order if the hostility persists. Thanks. Rangerdude 20:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the text so there are no anonymous critics. I have added cites. It does not matter if you think SPLC is partisan, since it is the major critic of LvMI. There is not original research, only expanded cites to LvMI material and a few sentences that provide additional published cites that back up that criticism. --Cberlet 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet - simply changing all the anonymous "critics" to read "SPLC" is not a rewrite. There are still multiple outstanding neutrality, sourcing, and formatting problems with your edits in general. As I have requested many times previously, please propose your desired additions here and I will be happy to detail what I still find objectionable as well as propose collaborative revisions of it in a manner that is more likely to reach consensus among the half dozen or so editors who are actively involved in developing this article at the very moment. Thanks Rangerdude 20:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

To engage in massive deletions that sanitize criticism, and repeated reversions; and then to feign courtesy, while at the same time threatenting sanctions, is, franky my dear, not worth a damn...to paraphrase a famous movie line. (puns intended, but not offense) :-) Please pursue dispute resolution if you like, this page is a transparent record of your actions.--Cberlet 21:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet - I've tried to be courteous towards you as the subject you are editing on involves multiple participants and extends far beyond your own contributions. My aim in this section is to reach a NPOV wording that is agreeable to both sides of the conflict - as in both those who favor including the SPLC and those who object to its inclusion. You appear to have strong and highly partisan political beliefs in one of these directions, yet you make few allowances for the fact that others here also differ with those beliefs as is their right. You also seem not to grasp the fact that Wikipedia is inherently collaborative, making bad faith attacks and bad faith assumptions about other editors who simply attempt to reign in your excesses with a mind towards following Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I've been perfectly polite with you and more than sufficiently patient on this matter, intervening only to stop your uncollaborative edits and respond to your unduly hostile attitude while openly inviting and encouraging you to work towards a more productive end. That having failed, I suppose seeking outside participation is the next recourse. Rangerdude 21:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop, LOL. You are so humorous. Great parody. What fun. I have added back one criticism. It is from a published source, the SPLC magazine. It is presented with full cites and full attribution. It is accurate. It is placed in the subsection you agree is where criticism should go (I disagree, but you arbitrarily revert any attempt to to seriously edit the article. So let's start by discussing this addition, not your deletions of large blocks of text. It so much more constructive and collective, don't you agree? :-) --Cberlet 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is fairly obvious that user:Cberlet has a chip on his shoulder with regards to the Mises Institute. Chip Berlet is a self-avowed big shot when it comes to "sniffing out" supposed right-wing hate groups, and as far as I can tell is a Morris Dees wanna-be, something that hardly qualifies him to add NPOV information about the Mises Institute, an organization which is often (mistakenly) referred to as "right-wing." I think it is pretty clear that Cberlet is attempting to carry on a one-man war against the Mises Institute. Unless he can moderate his behavior and at least attempt to write NPOV (as I do despite being an unabashed Misesian) I think that his edits should remain suspect. Mr. Berlet: Is your stance so shaky that it cannot withstand rational analysis by the Wikipedia community? Wikipedia is not a project under your control, and you have no special authority to demand that certain content be included. DickClarkMises 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Very amusing. Fans of LvMI claiming they are not partisan. My God! I had no idea there was gambling in this establishment. (Your winnings sir). Round up the usual suspects!--Cberlet 00:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find what I wrote amusing. And, of course, to clarify, I said that I "attempt" to write NPOV, and I trust that others who find my syntax or choice of inclusion particularly partisan will exercise their judgement in either deleting it or rewording it. BTW, great quote! DickClarkMises 03:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Cberlet is again reminded: No personal attacks on other editors. If you cannot conduct yourself in a mature and responsible fashion when addressing other editors the perception among other editors of your contributions to this article will diminish. You do not own wikipedia, Cberlet, and it is not a forum for you to promote left wing political viewpoints or berate other editors who do not share them. If you cannot control your political biases in accordance with Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV then you should avoid editing articles where they are prone to exhibit themselves strongly. Please try and keep it civil. Rangerdude 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Rangerdude, you already filed a complaint, so the paragraph above is somewhat self-serving--what we call in journalism a "cover your ass memo." But on the remote possibility that you are actually serious about actually editing in good faith, I propose that we both stop editing this page for 48 hours. Agreed?--Cberlet 01:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Your profanity and general disregard for any serious attempt to better this article are duly noted and will be logged accordingly. Had you behaved in a genuine and professional manner earlier this evening when I first extended a polite and good faith invitation to you to propose, discuss, and resolve issues about your desired additions here on the talk page, I likely would have considered what you propose. Given however that you have exhibited nothing but bad faith laced with personal attacks, insinuations about other editors, and general vitriol, I see little to be gained in binding myself to an agreement with a party who I no longer trust to fulfill it. Rangerdude 02:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Predictable response.--Cberlet 02:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC posted

In light of continued patterns of disruptive behavior and related difficulties in reaching a consensus on this talk page, and in light of the personally abusive and hostile behavior exhibited this afternoon by User:Cberlet in which repeated attempts at negotiation resulted in an RfC warning against him, I have posted a Request for Comment on this article's editing disputes located here.[9] Thanks - Rangerdude 00:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This RFC is an example of the kind of pettiness that sometimes makes me ashamed to be a libertarian. I try not to discuss my political beliefs here, but it's necessary to say that I agree with the LvMI on many (most?) issues. Still, I often find myself shaking my head in disappointment at the actions of a few fellow libertarians. It's as if some of us can't tolerate any criticism. Some people have said that Horowitz's criticism of SPLC should stay, but Duke's criticism should go - because it's guilt by association for LvMI. That's just hypocritical scheming. You can't pick and choose your sources. The idea that LewRockwell.com is irrelevant but Stephan Kinsella's blog is a legitimate source for this article? Come on. I wish I could believe that three well-known LvMI supporters can edit this article in an unbiased manner, but it doesn't look like it's true. This is a content dispute, and Willmcw and Cberlet's conduct has been very good overall. From Rangerdude and Nskinsella I see some troubling attempts at whitewashing the subject. Rhobite 06:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite - Please take a moment to review some of the more flagrant violations that have been cited as a basis for this RfC. Regardless of what you think about what content should or should not be included, it is difficult to deny that many of the cited edits in the RfC by these two editors were in conflict with several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is not about an inability to tolerate criticism - it's about a conscious political effort by two editors to slant this article by way of heavily partisan and overemphasized criticisms including more than their fair share of political cheap shots among them. In no way could any participant in this editing dispute accuse myself or most of the other editors of wanting to completely expunge or censor the SPLC's criticism of LVMI. I have simply asked that it be done in a responsible NPOV manner, and NPOV necessitates allowing reasonable counterbalancing statements as well - something that certain editors pursuing an anti-LVMI agenda have actively sought to deny and expunge. Simply read this talk page if you doubt me and you will see Willmcw attempting to remove sourced responses to the SPLC from LVMI affiliates on Lew Rockwell's site by dismissing them as "blogs" (and erroniously so at that). Elsewhere where SPLC sources have been used, it has been done in a manner clearly conflicting with Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, which explicitly requires that "partisan political websites" be used at a minimal unless for the purpose of identifying that site's opinions. Both Willmcw and Cberlet added multi-paragraph sections that used the SPLC as a source for information they presented as if it were part of a "factual" narrative on the LVMI rather than the SPLC's political viewpoint. This includes everything from the SPLC's use of dubious, context-chopped, and unreferenced quotations to the passing off of partisan SPLC editorial comments as accurate representations of the "views" of LVMI members. Elsewhere clear examples have been presented in which "sources" were added for plainly disruptive and discrediting purposes, such as the David Duke incident. Even the most partisan editor would be hard pressed to admit that Willmcw's David Duke quotations truly belong in the LVMI article and were truly added for constructive purposes or aimed at advancing the quality of that article. No matter how much seriousness one feigns in making an edit like that and no matter how he or she tries to cloak it, it simply doesn't pass the smell test. And that is why I initiated this RfC. Rangerdude 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Constructive Suggestion

A suggestion to those critical of the LvMI: It is very rare that anyone can claim they are unbiased. I make no denials about the fact that I donate to, regularly read, and write some blog-entries for the LvMI. Likewise, the same goes for those who are critical of it. This does not mean that one cannot make unbiased and neutral additions to the LvMI article. I myself have added some notable criticism of the LvMI (particularly DiLorenzo) on secession from Jaffa (this is despite the fact that I think Jaffa is completely wrong, and was rude in the debate I referenced). However, Jaffa has serious criticism: it is a scholarly criticism of a position taken by a LvMI senior faculty member.

What I have been skeptical of is the proliferation of criticism from the SPLC. The thrust of their criticism may be worth mentioning, but I see no value in adding more. They do not present serious, scholarly criticisms. From their publications, it seems they've made very little attempt to actually understand what the LvMI is saying, but have rather engaged in head-hunting for bad-sounding quotes. It an extreme exageration to say they're "the major critic of the LvMI". There is serious criticism on positions taken by LvMI members elsewhere. There are certainly more significant critics than the SPLC, which simply engages in distortions. Milton Friedman has criticized Austrians on methodology (Friedman is a positivist, Austrians praxeologists); Bryan Caplan has critiqued the Austrian methodology [10] [11], to which Walter Block has responded [12] [13] [14]. Dr. Antal Fekete has published a criticism of the support from many in the LvMI of the 100% gold standard, arguing instead for "Real Bills" (to which Robert Blumen has responded).

I think that some work on trying to succinctly summarize these criticisms would offer a much larger net marginal benefit than continuing to dwell on the amateur and politicized criticisms of the SPLC. They may be less accessible, but they are of higher quality (although I still think flawed).

A suggestion to those who want to add to the LvMI's positions: For those who would like to flesh out the positions of the LvMI, I would suggest taking a look at the Austrian Study Guide (by Subject). There are an enormous number of topics covered. Broadly, the topics the LvMI discusses include: (1) Economic from an Austrian perspective; (2) Libertarianism; (3) History via an economic understanding. And of course there are mixes. The topics I would suggest for starting on would be those of fundamental interest: methodology from the Austrian perspective, and libertarianism from the Austrian perspective. Those interested may consider looking at my lecture notes from the Mises University program, and/or at the Mises University required reading (which offers some good broad suggested essays, introducing one to important concepts of Austrian economics). --Dh003i 03:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope that these aforementioned suggestions be taken as good-faith suggestions. --Dh003i 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. But take as a good faith response that I bet I have been reading The Freeman, von Mises, Hazlitt, etc. since before you were born, and it is a wee bit patronizing to be told what I need to read to understand the Austrian School of economics.--Cberlet 02:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

From WP:No Personal Attacks:

Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to: Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

Please keep it civil. Rangerdude 02:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If a particular criticism (such as Friedman's) is directed at the Austrian School generally, rather than LvMI, shouldn't it go in the Austrian School article, not here? JamesMLane 07:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a tough question. I suppose it depends on if the criticism is directed at someone in the LvMI. Certainly, it should be discussed more in Austrian School, but it should be mentioned in this article. It's a judgement issue. I mean, when you look at expanding on the views of those at the LvMI, you're talking about Austrian economics, libertarianism, and an Austro-libertarian analysis of history. So, it seems appropriate that criticisms of all of those areas can briefly be mentioned here in this article.

If it's generalized criticism of the Austrian school it should go in that article. If it's uniquely specific to some LvMI issue, then here. Wyss 23:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

comment from FuelWagon

Saw the user RFC that pointed back to some edits on this article. Thought I'd drop a comment.

The SPLC says the Ludwig von Mises Institute is NeoConfederate. That's a one-word point of view.

The countering point of view is not to have several quotes from sources attacking the SPLC, but to have some sources actually saying something about the Ludwig von Mises Institute that it isn't NeoConfederate. The premise of NPOV has been knocked out of kilter in this article. There is almost more content in the article attacking the SPLC then there is about the Ludwig von Mises Institute itself. FuelWagon 03:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

To which I can only add, all criticism should go in a separate criticisms section, where this glaring lack of balance and NPoV will show itself plainly. If there isn't enough room in that section, a separate article (Criticims of LvMI) should be started and backlinked. Although good faith and sincerity may (and should) be assumed on both sides of the RfC, it will hopefully help get this article into a form whereby a literate reader capable of independent thought can easily learn what the LvMI is, then decide for herself if and how far she wants or even needs to look into the criticisms. Wyss 03:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon's view of the controversy appears to be extremely one-sided, as it completely neglects multiple attempts by Willmcw and Cberlet to add several paragraphs of material favorable to the SPLC's POV. As this same editor has accused me of having a "conflict of interest" for simply expressing a viewpoint of the LVMI that isn't consumed with bashing them and as he has dishonestly implied that I have professional connections with LVMI,[15] to which I am affiliated in no way, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality of his take on this matter. Rangerdude 19:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)