Talk:Mises Institute

SPLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's fair to point out that sources that Wikipedia deem reliable (e.g., the Washington Post) have pointed out that the SPLC is unreliable. These sources accuse the organization of having a history of charging individuals with false accusations. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html By Wikipedia's own standards, the SPLC cannot be taken as a reliable or neutral source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.12.34 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note the "opinion" part: that's only the personal opinion of columnist Thiessen. —PaleoNeonate – 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is widely cited off-wiki as an authority. Its biases are open and known. We always attribute its views, but there's no reason to exclude them as they are the single most cited source for this kind of analysis. Guy (help!) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am no fan of the SPLC (they should 'never be used as a source for whether an organization is a hate group or and individual is part of a hate group; they have been caught lying about that far too many times) but they are otherwise widely recognized by reliable sources as an authority, and there is zero reason to remove what they say in this case as long as it is attributed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, No, they have not been caught "lying". They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally. But reliable independent secondary sources routinely quote them, and thus so do we, but only with attribution. A review of the history of the individuals involved does make it rather obvious why SPLC listed them. Guy (help!) 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

They are unreliable on whether a hate group exists or on who is a member of a hate group. In other areas they are still widely cited by reliable sources and can be used with attribution. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Southern Poverty Law Center, where the strong consensus was that the SPLC is no longer reliable as the arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group.

Re: "They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally", please show your evidence that the SPLC ever retracted their false claim that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists. They have never issued a correction or in any way admitted that they were wrong, despite multiple print and TV news sources asking them about the claim.

See this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:[1]

Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.

One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed.

The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong.

Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, the SPLC silently changed the claim to say that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll" to support that claim.

The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year[2], ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that falsely claims that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level

When you make a claim without a shred of evidence[3] other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, and then change the claim to another false claim, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogus coat of arms

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

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

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

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

Maxlysle, which is bullshit. The Mises family coat of arms belongs to the Mises family, not to the recently formed think tank. I can't set up the Queen Elizabeth Institute and use the royal coat of arms. Guy (help!) 00:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That's probably true, unless your relationship with the queen is as close as Rothbard's was with Mises. It might also be easier if the queen is driven out of England by the Nazis. Kind of a weird comparison. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Pelirojopajaro, the grant of arms was to the Mises family not the institute. I could be the Queen's best mate (rather than merely having been invited to a Palace garden party once), I still could not use her coat of arms on my hypothetical Queen Elizabeth Institute. Guy (help!) 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't just that Mises was close to Rothbard; Lew Rockwell also got the permission of Mises's widow to set up the organization in the Mises name. Crawl of the wild (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point since I don't think American law prevents the use of heraldry which isn't independently trademarked. Is this thread a proposal to remove the coat of arms from the article? I don't see the point in discussing this otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

@JzG:, with regard to this What is the point of having motto and mission parameters to Template:Infobox institute if we can't use them? Calgarianic(ide) (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Calgarianic(ide), they are deprecated in the parent template per WP:MISSION, but it seems nobody remembered to follow up in subject-specific templates (I have now started that process). Wikipedia has had many naive ideas over time, and that was one of them. The problem is that mission statements are not NPOV - especially with think-tanks, who often describe themselves in terms even Orwell would consider a bit blatant.Guy (help!) 12:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

One could conclude the same thing about the names of many think tanks or government agencies. Should we censor those too? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Pelirojopajaro, not including PR is not "censorship", and: YES. Absolutely. We should not include mission statements. See WP:MISSION. Seriously. Go, nuke it wherever you see it. Guy (help!) 13:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think JzG should stop massive deleting content before there is a clear consensus about this. He is the one against the consensus. In my oppion his massive deleting is not justify. But could be better that the user writes here especific suggestions of redaction instead of just doing non sense cutting citing subjective interpretations of WP Politics. He also deleted a summary of duplicated topics that I do yesterday to reduce any possible judge of promotion, I think that the constructive intention of the user should be more clear and will be more clear if we makes punctual proposals of redaction here before than in the article. --Krapulat (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Go read the discussions at talk:Knights of Columbus, as a perfect recent exemplar of an article where fans of a subject tried to have most of the content drawn from the subject's own affiliated sites. That ended up with at least one topic ban. I'm sorry it got so bad before anyone noticed, but it has to be fixed. Wikipedia does not allow so much of any article to be drawn from the subject's own sites, and does not allow mission statements (see WP:MISSION). This is all part of core policy and has been for ever. You're welcome to bring content back paragraph by paragraph after substituting the primary source for a reliable independent secondary source, but reversion to the self-sourced version is a violation of WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 14:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

interpretations of WP Politics What you call "WP politics" is what everyone must follow on Wikipedia, that is not for free speech or WP:PROMOTION (WP:NOT being policy). —PaleoNeonate – 10:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Re "Wikipedia ....does not allow mission statements (see WP:MISSION)", WP:MISSION is not a policy, it's not even a guideline, it's an essay. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

North8000, an essay describing the relevance of WP:NPOV to misison statements. Guy (help!) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Completely agree with Guy here. Virtually all organizations self-promote which is why independent sources are crucial. What is the importance of the mission statement? If it's covered in independent sources, discuss in the body, else omit. (I am not finding any reliable, independent sources which mention the mission statement in full). buidhe 14:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Debate on the Reliable Source Noticeboard concerning Mises

Following this suggestion, I am notifying all viewers of this talk page that there is currently a discussion involving Mises on the reliable sources noticeboard. Flickotown (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC IS NOT NEUTRAL

SPLC is not neutral source, you have to share only neutral sources, otherwise you can find a denounce for defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.97.52 (talk • contribs)

SPLC is an accepted source for facts such as this. Sources are not required to be neutral. See WP:BIASED.

Your "you can find a denounce" statement appears to be a violation of WP:No legal threats. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding to what Binksternet wrote, please see WP:SPLC. Llll5032 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Critics to the organization or to persons?

The section of Criticism has a paragraph that I see inaproppiate, because the content is not really criticism to the institution (that it is an independent academic organization, not a political proselitism organization) but to persons that have done a kind of activism or expressing opinions in their activism outside their institutional functions. As those lines are not specific criticism to the labor of the institution, I think this paragraph needs to be erased. If there are criticism to persons in particular those criticism have to been in the respective articles.

"The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views of some of its leading figures, on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump.Sanchez, Julian; Weigel, David (2008-01-16). "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?". Reason.com. Retrieved 2020-12-28. Sheffield, Matthew. "Where did Donald Trump get his racialized rhetoric? From libertarians". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2020-12-28.Rutenberg, Jim; Kovaleski, Serge F. (2011-12-26). "Paul Disowns Extremists' Views but Doesn't Disavow the Support (Published 2011)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-12-28."

--Krapulat (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield's essay characterizes the institute itself, not just the leading figures. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's check it. Anyway that article is from 2008, let's work just on what it say. But, Trump presidential campaign was from 2016, and there is not an institutional support/communicate of it. That could be inmediatly erased.--Krapulat (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield's essay is from 2016. Llll5032 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to post this here because it took a little while to track down. SPLC is citied as quoting Steve Horwitz's Fist in Glove quote. He is Horwitz quoting it himself. https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonesyPHD (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)