Talk:Mises Institute/Archive 4

715:. (That's a general issue with this article. In places, the article seems to be more focused on labeling the Institute (e.g., as "right-wing", "paleo libertarian", "neo-Confederate", and "racist") than with describing its actions, positions, and societal influence -- or with describing the specifics of the criticism of the Institute.) Also, it's not clear to me that the article as currently written supports the statement that the "right wing" label is applied by "critics," broadly defined. That section states that "some writers" have used that characterization, listing two book citations (which I discussed earlier on this page) -- that doesn't necessarily translate to the broad "critics." Some other content in the "Criticisms" section that I've been able to access turns out either to (1) not to be explicitly about the Institute (an example of this is the David Boaz quotation at the beginning of "Criticisms", which is from a piece that nowhere names the Institute, Lew Rockwell, or Murray Rothbard) or (2) not say what the article claims it says (an example is the SPLC content that I discussed in the comments I posted here late last night). 2432:, not the concept of an amorphous LvMI and building and various people associated with or affiliated with it. Once we say "this article is about the Ludwig von Mises Institute" we have stay within the four corners of that concept. The problem is one of going beyond the institute and into the thoughts of all the different people that have some connection with the institute. The SPLC reference gives us its' opinion about LvMI, and we can use it as long as we do so in context. Now if there is RS, preferably secondary sources, that says "LvMI is one of those lunatic organizations that supports the anti-climate change crowd", then we can use that stuff. But we are getting into OR when we find Evans (who is a change skeptic) and say "LvMI is an anti-climate change organization because they published this piece from Evans." – 625:

Institute. Furthermore, it doesn't say the Institute is "right-wing" (not that "right wing" is a term that conveys the kind of definitive meaning an encyclopedia should strive for). Rather, it says the people associated with the Institute "represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history, the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states." Later in the passage, the writer characterizes these people as "neo-Confederates". That's an interesting bit of raw material for tha article, but opinionated comments like that one need to be represented as opinion, attributed, presented in proper context, and not given

676:

attributed to cited sources in the "criticisms" section. I wonder whether the criterion you apply is the correct one for the short lede sentence under discussion. The opening paragraph of the lede, which I wrote, properly gives vMI's own description of its mission. It seems to me that the less prominent short reference to some of the concerns of vMI critics -- criticisms which are clearly not stated in WP's voice -- is a rather innocuous balancing statement. I think that some of the initial concern about this sentence arose because some readers did not realize that it was summarizing cited referenced material from the article body below.

4636:

reasons for location that were given by Jeffrey Tucker, a LvMI VP. To be honest, it sounds like regional puffery and I don't see that it has any place in this article. Admittedly, it is the type of regional puffery that I'd more commonly associate with a cub reporters writing for a local rag but it is nonetheless speculative. Oddly, we omit one of the points that is mentioned and might be relevant, ie: Auburn University was one of the few economics depts with Austrian sympathies at the time - the article suggests that, although there was no formal association, this might have affected the location. -

2557:. Thus the description of Rockwell and his views, in this article, gets limited to "founded by Lew Rockwell, an American libertarian author and editor, self-professed anarcho-capitalist and promoter of the Austrian School of economics." Good WP writing about an institution does not spin off into debates which concern the various views of the people who have been published by the institution. When we say "LvMI published such-and-such article/book, therefore it is promoting the views of that author" we are injecting too much of our own views. Compare: I see that 2979:

WP:RS may say, WP:RS info they usually try to eliminate entirely, like the 7 refs calling Rothbard an Austrian economist), at what point does it become an automatic and justified action to revert such attempts? At what point does it just become a violation of NPOV to have to debate every single edit of theirs over and over again for hours a day?? Isn't that the definition of POV/disruptive editing? I gave up on such frustrating debates myself (and refusal of community to opine). This is the point I'm having trouble getting addressed. Thanks.

2023:, because that was what the citation was for. The citation did not show the endowment, so that is what I corrected. I equate posting the endowment here as we do for universities. GuideStar's posting of Form 990 information is the same as NACUBO posting content that universities and their foundations submit directly to NACUBO. When the IRS form states this is the value of the endowment, then that's what it is. I don't think quantitive data in the infobox is undue. I hope the endowment value is reinstated. 953:? Either way, Rich claimed the RSN ruled out that section, which turns out not to be true. On that basis, you should have rejected his request. You should have also rejected it the moment it became clear that there was no consensus for it. As it stands, you have once again overstepped your privileges, just like when you first changed the article right before protecting it. You need to remove the protection and back away from this article that you're in the process of ruining. 31: 3807:(will put in new link when archvied) to all Austrian economics related articles. I have asked the ruling admin if there is a warning message template including that language or if one can be made to refer people to as a first step, rather than always referring to the ANI thread or going to a noticeboard or the ruling admin. I can see we need to mention this since there is a new increasingly heated debate with charges of Personal attacks. 437: 1948:. If this is still considered a primary source, it is an appropriate use. The endowment value on the 990 is very clear, and I even included the page number in the citation to help readers. I thought I would bring this discussion here to determine if the endowment should be reinstated. Having the endowment value of a 501(c)(3) exempt organization is helpful information in understanding their finances. Thanks, 2607: 1530: 2095: 748: 1194:? It is pure SYN to say "X wrote about Y subject, therefore Z institute has such-and-such opinion about Y." IOW, just because Mises.org published their stuff does not mean the institute subscribes to the stuff. We need RS to backup such an assertion. So, the material about Rockwell, Rothbard, etc., as individuals, and not pertaining directly to their role in LvMI, should be removed. – 703:, the body of he article will need to be revised to include an objective discussion of the institute's history (the section "Background and location" that currently begins the article body is almost as much commentary as it is objective information) and to include other details (such as mission statement and tax-exempt status) that are now found only in the lead section and infobox. 1767:

living people who are not affiliated with vMI and may object to the suggestion or the implication, intentional or otherwise, that they are affiliated with vMI. Therefore, per BLP and per common sense clear presentation of the material the template should not appear on this page. You wouldn't put the template which lists Indy 500 winners on the Greenpeace page, would you Srich?

1974:. (In other words, melissadata is not RS in this context.) If the template said "endowment -- use most recent 990 data", then we could use the 990 data. Even without that parameter description, I think the 990 data works as to this particular parameter. (Another question arises, though, with "budget" in the template. How is that defined and what is RS for "budget"?) – 217:

between energetic advocacy of laissez-faire Austrian school economic ideas and neo-secessionist Civil War revisionism. Rockwell has been blamed for writing some of the un-bylined racist, homophobic, and conspiracist rants that cropped up in Ron Paul’s newsletters in decades past, though this choice passage was apparently written by Paul himself:

814: 2509:, as an institute, thinks on global warming might be helpful. On the other hand, what various individuals loosely associated with LvMI think is off-topic. As WP editors we should ask "Why should we keep the stuff listed? How does it improve the article? Is it here to provide a platform for those who think LvMI is great or garbage?" – 3988:. I'm surprised and disappointed that there was no notice of this thread here on the article talk page. Even worse, however, an involved editor has summarily closed the BLPN thread when the the issue currently in dispute appears to be whether use of this reference for certain article statements constitutes a BLP violation. 2329:, it would be on its Knowledge page). This is sheer silliness. What specifically would it mean for a scholar to say "The Mises Institute thinks blah blah blah? The Mises Institute, unlike its scholars, is not a rational being capable of forming an opinion; it is not even a conscious being; it is just a concept and a building. 1588:. I think you will find nobody there agrees with you. I certainly don't. I think it is petty politics you are playing—that you hate LvMI with a passion and that you do not want to be associated with them. Unfortunately, your Austrian School is widely considered to be inclusive of the Rothbard clan, the LvMI element. 2045:). NACUBO is a reliable secondary source that endeavors to publish consistent data for different institutions. Reproducing information published by NACUBO is a far cry from individual Knowledge contributors extracting information from the IRS Form 990, or declaring that "assets" can be equated with "endowment". 1372:, not the various views of 70–200 "scholars" associated with the institute. Notable scholars with their own articles can have their views described in their articles. Unless there is RS which makes a connection about the views of particular scholars to the institute, such views are off-topic. And the RS must 4444:

Skousen points out what some of the more knowledgeable editors have mentioned here a few times, which is that Rothbard "made the costly mistake of staying outside the discipline". Rothbard also "refused to join the American Economic Association or write for the academic journals". He even repeats the

3492:

with the edit summary "Revert removal of relevant RS text". Well, while Callahan may be a notable economist, the material he has supplied – the speculative personal surmises in his personal blog – are not acceptable as RS. I'll say it again, his thoughts are clearly SPS, involve third parties, and do

2912:

Steele made up a compromise. In particular, it was made up without canvassing the views of the person who was previously reverted. The history of this and related articles should be a warnign to all that you're going to have to discuss pretty much everything, and BRD most definitely does not say that

2622:

The last time we talked about Rothbard as a polemicist, there was no consensus. One source talked about Rothbard as a polemicist but many sources assigned other descriptors to his career, mostly having to do with libertarian economics theories, economics history, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and so

2404:

If only you'd shared that with us years ago, think of all the wasted energy that could have been channeled to productive ends. Needless to say, you'll need to demonstrate convincingly and by quoting the words of specific applicable policies (not just linking to entire policy pages) that this proposal

2343:

Not only that, but following Srich's line of thought, we shouldn't even name the individuals because we don't have RS statements for each of them describing their relationship to vMI or what they do there. We might describe the building itself, but then again the building is not the Institute, which

1545:

The Austrian School box includes individuals who are not associated with vMI. Per BLP, these individuals cannot be listed on the Mises Inst. page. Only Mises Institute and its affiliated writers claim that Mises Institute is a center of Austrian School economics. Independent sources do not call vMI

4572:

That's incorrect. I've looked at the history of the SPLC as a RS, and there have been others such as yourself who claim it is biased, but that's not what the rulings have said. In particular, we can call an organization a hate group if the SPLC says it's one, as opposed to attributing the hate group

4089:

There are three sources in that section that has been tagged as possibly unreliable or self-published. Even if we find that all the three sources are reliable sources, there is still the question about whether we are given undue weight to sources that are only borderline notable/reliable; especially

3562:

We went through this blog issue before with Callahan and Murphy. His membership in the institute does not allow us, as Knowledge editors, to use his personal blog to talk about third parties or to repeat his speculations about what had occurred at the institute before he became associated with them.

2048:

In other articles about organizations, I've seen Knowledge contributors extract data like officers' salaries from Form 990, then use that information in the article to depict the organization in a negative fashion. This article has plenty of other issues to iron out; it's not a good idea to squabble

1859:

BLP does not apply here. The sidebar template talks about organizations that are widely known as having an affiliation to the Austrian School. It does not attempt to castigate individuals, or ruin their reputations. If you really think BLP is the stick with which to beat this beast, let me know what

675:

Hello Orlady. The statement in the lede doesn't state that vMI is right wing or a cult as a fact or as WP's view or conclusion. It merely summarizes without comment the criticisms which are presented later in the body of the article. Those criticisms are presented as opinions and as such they are

267:

I can't access all of the sources cited in the body of the article, but I can comment on some of them. Two sources are cited for the statement that the Institute has been called "right-wing". I could only see Google snippets from one of the the books; the snippets indicate that the book mentions the

4448:

In the summary, Skousen admits that "Rothbard's bold analysis fell on deaf ears outside of his libertarian audience" (where Skousen himself is part of that audience, naturally). This is a beautifully lucid statement. He even explains why, saying, that Rothbard "became embroiled in Libertarian Party

4151:

I tend to think that three (of total five/six) borderline notable/reliable sources may be undue. I often prefer to use borderline sources mostly for uncontroversial facts, and be more careful about using them for negative statements about a subject. And here there are three such borderline sources

3234:

You're throwing up an increasing number of policy mentions which do not support your position. Your policy link increments notwithstanding, you have not provided a policy-based issue which relates to the text which you dispute. A single valid argument is what's required to impeach the text at this

3173:

Srich, the Horwitz text presents Horwitz' opinion as Horwitz' opinion. Horwitz amply explains his views in the cited source, which directly and straightforwardly supports the neutral text which you keep removing. Your denial of WP policy with a series of straw man talk page and edit summary links,

2741:

is on his role as an economist etc. His role as a polemicist is given significantly less weight in the lead. (Please don't take the battle over to that article - the various parties seem already to have been involved with it for some time, so let's assume that the weighting is correct provided that

1836:

Hello Binker. I have said before that, despite your various misdemeanors I do believe that you sincerely believe much of the self-promotion and posturing about the Mises Institute, Rothbard and others. However in fact: It is *not* the case that "all the reliable sourcs say that LvMI is part of the

1565:

I'm not qualified to judge who counts as "official" or even "mainstream" Austrian, but it's pretty clear that there was little overlap between this article and that template, so I'm fine with removing it. I'm not at all fine with Binksternet insulting SPECIFICO (and now me) by calling this idiotic,

1463:

When all you have is one cherry, you can never know if it's typical. Here, we have North speaking at the Institute's 30th anniversary conference, we have two Rothbard essays, we have a revisionism book they endorse, and so on. You'd have to shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and hum to

1411:

demonstrates how off-topic/OR/SYN is being injected. An article from 1976, reprinted in the 2000s by Mises.org, which gives the views of one of the founders, is presented as "supporting" the idea that revisionism is a focus of the institution. Where is the RS that supports this idea? Are there any

258:

that you quote from isn't cited in this article.) Your book quote is about Lew Rockwell, not about the Institute. The only thing he says about the Institute is that Rockwell is its director. Presenting a statement about Rockwell as being a statement about the Institute would be a misrepresentation.

4635:

We say of the Wall Street Journal article that "The article goes on "to make an additional point", that "Southerners have always been distrustful of government," making the South a natural home for the organization's libertarian outlook." That was the WSJ writer's opinion and is not in the list of

4468:

The point of view of writers is wholly irrelevant to whether or not they are reliable sources. We must however separate the facts expressed and the views of the writer, however I do not think that any of the four points you mention are personal opinions. The term "conservative economists" though

4180:

You are still missing the point. If the LvMI is largely ignored outside the libertarian community, then we should take the same approach, instead of resorting to unreliable sources. Unless you are suggesting we use these sources for writing about general history, politics and economics articles,

3488:

and concerns third parties. Moreover, it is not discussing a subject in which he is an expert – economics. (Note: this material was removed with the edit summary of "Remove Callahan personal blog material: SPS & not an opinion on subject he is an expert in; merely speculative "I think ...."".)

2978:

Since Sitush, an uninvolved editor, is opining, let me merely ask: if editor(s) have a six to 12 month history of trying to downgrade the credibility of BLPs, in their own articles and other articles, and have freely talked about why those people should be rendered un-credible (no matter what some

2124:

requires us to set up articles with titles that are precise and concise. E.g., article titles must "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." And once we set up and article, we much make sure we stay within the scope of the article. We write in summary

2063:

Okay, I had no intent of portraying the subject of this article in any certain kind of light. And I was trying to make the point that assets and endowments are not the same thing. I'm not really interested in the other parts of this article except for some WikiGnome activity, so I'll just wait to

1821:

Specifico, you cast this dispute as one in which apples and oranges are both put into the same template, and your wish is to separate the two to the satisfaction of all parties. This is incorrect; all the reliable sources say that the LvMI is part of the Austrian School. At the most different they

695:

In its current form, the lead section consists of content that is (for the most part) not found later in the article body; as such, the lead section is heavily footnoted. In that context, the lead section can't contain one unfootnoted sentence that summarizes potentially controversial content from

104:

So, the pattern I'm seeing here is Srich32977 and Binksternet making lots of bad changes while edit-warring and ignoring consensus. Since they won't accept consensus, I'm simply going to let them do whatever harm they want to the article, then revert all of their changes. Unfortunately, we'll lose

4437:

While Skousen is far, far from neutral, he's a reliable source on LvMI and Rothbard, particularly in this publication, and there's material that we can use in some form. If anything, Skousen's notable biases mean that any criticism to be found must be taken seriously and cannot be shrugged off as

3613:

The problems with this citation remain. It is a personal blog; Callahan is speculating about events prior to his arrival (thus it involves "claims about events not directly related to the source"); it is on a subject in which he is not an expert; it involves a third party – the institution. –

3015:

Carol, this really isn't the place to bring up your subjective (which found no support at multiple ANIs you filed) interpretation of another user's conduct. Please focus on content, not contributors. As to your addition of the "then" qualifier regarding Rothbard's tenure Brooklyn (where he stayed

2370:

We can use LvMI's listing of scholars, even if primary, because it is sufficiently reliable in context. We might even use their by-laws. Context matters. As for the other organizations, I don't think I have the time or energy or inclination to evaluate those articles in the same fashion. Aren't

1996:

as sources. There are good reasons for this. There is inherently a certain amount of interpretation to required to determine the meaning of an entry on an IRS form. Also, when articles are based on information that Knowledge contributors obtained by digging into sources like IRS forms, there is a

1209:

You're making major changes to the article -- mostly by removing well-cited material -- without prior discussion. Simply announcing your conclusions here without waiting for anyone to respond is not a substitute for genuine consensus-building. As a result, the version you are creating is going to

934:

Believe it or not, I read the RSN discussion and the cited sources before deleting that "hyenas" comment. (I did not mindlessly accept SRich's assertions.) IMHO, regardless of how it was sourced, that "hyenas" content did not add encyclopedic value. Meanwhile, I am getting the distinct impression

553:

I don't think it would be hard to find multiple AND valid sources referring to the organization as leaning right. You could probably find sources from the organization itself that say exactly that. To say the LvMI is "right-wing" shouldn't be any more controversial than saying the Republicans are

216:

No, not everyone on the right or even the far right is an anti-Semite, a neo-Know-Nothing, or a racist, but haters aren’t particularly rare or exotic either. The paleo-libertarian Lew Rockwell, an economic adviser to Ron Paul and the director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, divides his efforts

4501:, but as I pointed out on their talk page, neither one fits. BLP does not protect large institutions and SPS makes an exception for a source that is an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". 3781:

I assume you are talking about Volokh and not the other three I put up? I was going to put all four up after the weekend, allowing more discussion, but since Steeletrap jumped right on it, I figured I'd put up the other three to make the pattern of dubious edits more clear, thus showing the NPOV

3629:

That's not what speculation is. As a member, he was familiar with its history of racism, and now he defends it by saying the racism was mostly a thing of the past. His view as a member is not comparable to some random blog by a person who has had no personal association with the Institute. It is

3150:

blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. " So, even if BHL is composed of academics, they are a group blog. (Also, it may qualify as unacceptable BLOG material under the other criteria.) Accordingly, no matter how

2790:

I guess I'm ok with that change, although it's not how I'd prefer it. The key point here is that, based on his "day job" of teaching economics at Polytech, he would not be at all notable. His notability comes from his political activism, particularly in the form of polemic writings in support of

2710:

Noting that Rothbard was an instructor of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic describes his substantive role as an economist. I don't see why we have to use the vague word "economist" rather than describing Rothbard's actual work. Would you still prefer "economist" had Rothbard been a professor at

2423:

Yes, if I had thought of this back in May 2010, some 166 article edits ago, I'd have saved myself (and you, with 149 edits) a lot of work. Even so, I'm pretty sure I can garner community support and get this stuff taken out. Why? The policies are cited and quoted. (I wish I could explain it more

1710:

S.Rich, I think you have this backwards, you wrote: "Inclusion of Mises.org in the template is not an article issue." That's not the problem. The problem is inclusion of the template in Mises. -- the opposite. Thank you for clarifying your view on talk, and please undo your reinsertion of this

1390:

Rothbard and Rockwell are the founders, so their beliefs are directly relevant to what they created and ran. As for the various scholars, you're not actually making an argument for excluding them. Rather, you're arguing against a position that nobody is for, which is that the entire organization

624:

in 2008 -- a piece that is currently ineptly quoted in the article and cited as footnote 29). It is an opinion, not an objective fact. Moreover, note that the writer does not say that anyone else (neither a named person nor a collective noun like "critics") has said the same things about the LvM

263:

by Goldwag that was cited in the article lede says about the Institute is "there is a long-standing strain of American anarchism that ... evolved into the form of libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism that is associated with Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, the president of the Ludwig von

3036:

Sitush: thanks for reminder. I guess one just needs to cover more of those categories with more examples than I've done in past complaints. We'll see how much of a conflict ensues over my adding "then" instructor, since some will not like the inference he may have risen to professor a few years

1766:

Boys, boys. This isn't dungeons and dragons. We're trying to edit an encyclopedia here. Srich has twice stated the problem backwards, which I realize might be further confusing Mr. Bink but the problem is very simple. A reader will look at the "Austrian School" template and see the names of

416:

It's pretty simple: we have sources showing that critics accuse the Institute of being cult-like and consider it to be far-right. Despite these sources, the sentence summarizing this was removed from the lead. Based on the Reddit thread, the reason is that these visitors really, really like the

2446:

You don't have to "explain it". What you need to do is document the applicable policies with quotations. The issue you raise, which applies to dozens of similarly constituted organizations and their WP articles will need to be resolved in a way that's consistent site-wide. An RfC at one such

1334:

Back to the topic of this thread – the off topic material – I invite editors to comment on what they see in the tagged section. Does it pertain to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or is it material about what people associated with LvMI (closely or loosely) have written about? I contend that the

2896:

was Steele's attempt to soften up my version with a compromise that makes it closer to Binksternet's version. I don't see how this is productive in any way, much less how it is justified by policy. BRD suggests that Binksternet should accept the revert. It doesn't in any way imply that Steele

4210:

People are not reliable sources, published writings are. Otherwise we could use Barnes as a reliable source for holocaust articles. So Skousen's books published by academic publishers (i.e., outside the libertarian community) are reliable sources, while his writings for LvMI etc. are not.

277:

on the website describes the von Mises Institute, but it doesn't ever call it "hard right" (in fact, the description of the Institute doesn't use the word "hard" and the word "right" appears only in the context of "property rights" and "voting rights"). (There are, however, plenty of other

2838:

A revert can be "in kind" rather than identical: seek agreement, please. It seems that you are prepared to go some way, which is great, but you cannot force a preferred ("least-bad"?) version with some sort of pre-emptive strike. Others may wish to adjust in a more significant manner. -

3067:

I removed personal blog comments from David Friedman with the following edit summary: "Remove David Friedman blog comment -- it is SPS & discusses third parties; other than saying Rockwell founded LvMI, it does not discuss LvMI as an organization". This material was restored here:

3337:

was addressing the question of whether 3RR applied, not whether the blog is a BLP violation. In this case you have taken the BLP one step further -- Ron Paul is the subject of both the original and new blog posts. The question remains: Is Bleeding Hearts Libertarians a group blog? –

2255:. Two, the inclusion of the section violates policy because it goes beyond what has been "unambiguously identified the article's subject. Three: it is SYN to say "Author X has such & such views, Author X is associated with LvMI, therefore LvMI has the same views as Author X. 2990:

MilesMoney, I haven't commented on an edit war: my emphasis has been on BRD since there is clearly a difference of opinion. BRD says that you should discuss to achieve consensus, not that you should put a note on a talk page and then go ahead and do your thing. Carolmooredc, see

3079:

talk about Mises.org other than by making the passing remark that Rockwell founded LvMI. Accordingly, it fails as proper RS in two senses: it is SPS which talks about third parties and it does not directly support anything about the topic of the article, the Mises Institute. –

259:

Furthermore, the paragraph you quote here doesn't explicitly describe Rockwell as "right-wing", and it most definitely doesn't indicate that "critics" have called the Institute "right wing" or compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult. Additionally, the only thing that the

3608:

In a discussion about alleged racism in the Institute, former Institute Scholar Gene Callahan noted that the Institute had sought to appeal to racists for years, but also said that "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time ... I got there" in in the early

905:

I will add that when the prior PP was implemented, I did an edit request on the specific Callahan blog material. My request was not implemented. Even so, we have other personal blogs posted in the article. David Friedman is in footnote 45 and George Selgin is in footnote 44.

3697:

It is probably also worth mentioning that RSN regulars are people, too: if the nature of comments from involved parties at that forum deteriorates into a badgering type of situation then you'll likely find that you will be arguing among yourselves there as well as here. -

554:"Right wing". I think the problem here is the use of the word CULT, especially in the opening paragraph. As it stands, it comes from one individual (not a consensus among economists) and seems more fitting for the 'Criticisms' section. What is everyone's opinion on this?-- 4106:

I haven't seen any arguments explaining why these would be undue. Tags aren't for making an article look bad. They're to direct editors to an ongoing conversation. Not a potential one, or a threatened one, but a conversation that's real. These tags do not appear helpful.

2263:

items, whether or not they are primary source or supported by secondary sources, is the camel's nose under the tent. E.g., would we permit the listing to go on and on simply because Mises.org publishes their work? Without commenting on POVs that motivate the inclusion of

1963:

If I understand Orlady's edit summary, the "order of magnitude" concern comes from the $ 17mm figure that melissadata.com (once) gave compared to the $ 1.1mm figure from the 990. Well, I don't think the melissadata info can be applied to the line "endowment" we see in

268:

Institute on only one page, leading me to wonder whether it said much of anything about the Institute. Later in the article, I read that "The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the Mises Institute as a hard right organization," so I looked at the source cited. The

1988:

I had several reasons for deleting the endowment information from the infobox. The most important of these is that the endowment is a detail that is not vital to this article. (The fact that a data field exists in the infobox template is not a mandate to fill in the

1242:

BRD says that when you make a bold change like this, the expected reaction is a revert. In response to this revert, you must discuss, not edit-war by counter-reverting. It will be interesting to see if you can follow this or will need to be blocked for edit-warring.

3750:

I disagree. Many people were explicitly questioning the reliability of the source. The source is used to say exactly what I say it is used to say on the RSN. Notability and reliability are separate issues, but the reliability of the source was objected to by Carol.

1786:

I have no strong opinion on this issue, but I do have a strong opinion about those who seem not to understand the issue sharing their uninformed but strong opinions. When someone literally doesn't know what they're talking about, we have no motivation to listen.

783:

Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul

2258:

Also consider that Mises.org publishes some 420 book titles written by two dozen authors. It sponsors a blog, seminars, conferences, a University, electronic media (452 videos and 274 audio, many available through iTunes). The inclusion of these particular

3220:, not the composition or character of organizations or people associated with an organization. Moreover, since this SPS involves third parties we cannot use it. (And this guideline applies whether Horwitz et al are saying positive or negative things.) – 281:

It's way past my bedtime, so I won't continue this tonight. Suffice it to say that (tedious as this may seem) Knowledge content needs to be based on what cited sources actually say, not on what we read into them, what we think they should say, or what we

3925:

That's just a general search, of course. It's often more productive to add a relevant term for the topic/source/etc. under discussion. Of course, I'm sure certain topics have been all searched out, if recent contributions on similar topics are included.

3075:. While the Friedman personal blog may be RS in other situations -- such as his views on topics in which he is an expert -- this personal blog comment does not discuss such topics. His personal blog talks about his father and other persons. It does 568:

We already have multiple sources confirming both aspects of the sentence about criticism. A summary of criticism doesn't have to represent a consensus among critics, it just has to be a fair representation of the sort of criticism that's out there.

2324:

The views of an Institution's scholars are relevant to that Institution, particularly if said views are published by Mises.org (you can bet that if a mainstream institution such as a prominent university repeatedly published articles advocating

2424:

clearly. Perhaps another editor will do a better job than I in the next few days.) If others don't chime in, I'll put up an RfC. Steeletrap, I think you are missing the importance of the policy that says we must give articles titles that are

643:

You're just digging a deeper ditch for yourself. The sentence you deleted is directly supported by these references, and your stated reason was that it lacked citations. You were wrong. You remain wrong. The sentence belongs in the article.

3660:

that said Callahan couldn't call it cult. Do we have to add that he can't call it racist to the two others to bring to WP:RSN? And then there's all the neutral and even positive WP:RS info that can be added so this article doesn't become a

4195:

You missed the other part; it's not at all ignored inside the community, so we can use reliable sources who are libertarians. This also helps avoid any claims of POV, because we're not citing those who oppose all forms of libertarianism.

2177:

33 – SPLC Intelligence Report – 10 sentences in 7 paragraphs. Discusses Mises.org, Rockwell, Livingston, Fleming. Says Rockwell & Jeff Tucker were listed as founding members of the League of the South and states their denial of the

2823:

I wouldn't prefer it either. But as fate would have it, Sitush has reverted my edit and (inexplicably, given that the edit wasn't a revert/was an attempt at compromise) accused me of 'warring.' So I guess our preferred version stays!

2775:

As to your substantive point, the article in its current form describes Rothbard's work as an economist (i.e. as an instructor at Brooklyn Polytechnic). I am not against putting that before "polemicist", and in fact will do that now.

1748:

No, there should be no change to the sidebar template. We should not entertain the suppression of one faction by activists from the other faction. Rather, we should trust that our reliable sources have clearly stated the connection.

1116:

This portion of the text "a label which Lew Rockwell and others affiliated with the Institute deny." has been removed. The citation for this was broken. The correct url for the article is Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. (August 28, 2006).

1034:

See the reason I jokingly added "Quotes or it didn't happen" is that just about anybody can link to one of those WP:ACRONYMS but it doesn't mean they apply. There's nothing about WP:DENY that has anything to do with this situation.

828:

There was an earlier RSN discussion about a Callahan blog item. Was the outcome of that discussion fully implemented? I ask because the article still cites a Callahan blog item, but it's apparently not the content discussed at RSN.

3830: 272:

cited states "Around the country, ideas that originated on the hard right or in the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists are finding their way into the mainstream," but it doesn't classify any organization as "hard right."

2791:

various forms of libertarianism over the years. We have to mention that he taught economics, because it's true and relevant, but we would be violating any number of policies if we gave that prominence exceeding his claim to fame.

2216:

10 Mises.org cites – 3 to articles by non-Mises "affiliated" persons; 1 to Mises' book (I don't know, but isn't he dead?); 3 citations to the Journal symposium article, which had 8 articles; and 3 to Rockwell, Block & Gordon.

1613:, which includes the very article, violates BLP is extraordinary. (I have restored it.) The inclusion of Mises.org in the template might be one for discussion on the template page, but no possible BLP violation can occur when the 2135:

23 – Mises.org – by Chistopher Mayer, an MBA student, discussing what other writers, including Mises & HL Menken thought (provided to support idea that Mises scholars think democracy is "coercive" and "a system of legalized

2228:

5 non-Mises.org cites – 2 from SPLC which reference Mises.org; 1 from LRC, which does not mention Mises.org; 1 from Reason.com, which does not mention Mises.org; and 1 (TNR) which describes Wood & Livingston as being Mises

3996:

Please undo your closing of the BLPN thread so that the discussion can continue there. BLP concerns have been cited by several editors and these important issues must be addressed in an orderly way in the appropriate forum.

1444:

When there are cherries to be picked as to Gary North, pick them and put them in the Gary North article. But doing so in this article, using these cherries to describe the views of North as the "focus" of LvMI is improper. –

330:

Why must everyone with opposing views be puppets? How about we all work together to make this article as bias-free and accurate as possible? How about instead of banning individuals we bring them into the Knowledge community?

4615:

The lead says that the LvMI was founded by Rockwell, Blumert and Rothbard; the body says that it was founded by Rockwell. Both cannot be correct. Furthermore, both are poorly phrased. Can anyone resolve this contradiction? -

3902:

These appear dubious to me, but if you believe that they are RS for specific text which you wish to add to the article, then make those additions and we will follow WP process to evaluate the content and citations. Thanks.

4152:

in the criticism section, making up about half of the section. If it's difficult to find sources which critise LVMI in more ordinary notable sources; it might be a sign that not all the criticism is fully notable. Regards,

3828:

policy encourages all editors to create a neutral article.) Nevertheless, just to prove there is such info I did, for starters, a quick Highbeam search of "Mises Institute" (which had far more hits). Other searches include

3688:

in the last 24 hours or so. Might I suggest that when someone does this in future then they leave a note to that effect on this talk page? I've noticed that some people have been informed of specific RSN referrals on their

2268:

particular items, the whole section is improper. If there is RS that says LvMI holds to these particular views, then such material can be included. Otherwise this section must go. (But what do I know?) Please comment. –

718:

IMO, the article needs to be reorganized to separate "the facts" from the statements of opinion. All of the content needs to be carefully checked to make sure it truly represents what sources say, and not a contributor's

3782:

issue as well, which is what I assume North8000 referring to. I don't see Volokh used as a source hardly at all, and the couple I saw were for more legal technical issues, not highly negative individual opinion pieces.

706:

A further concern here is the quality of the content in the sentence. The label "right wing" is almost meaningless (it means very different things in different contexts). Anyway, as a general rule an encyclopedia should

4376:, 2009.) The difference is that that book was reviewed by other economists with various views before publication, and it reflects on his standing as an economist rather than his standing as a libertarian writer. 3693:

talk pages but there is a danger that the notifier may accidentally omit the inform all involved parties and this might be construed as canvassing. The same principle should probably apply to the other "Austrian"

1661:

I'm going to point out that "captain obvious" is sarcastic to the point of being a borderline personal attack. As for your comment, you're just stating a conclusion without really explaining why we should agree.

2468:

is a side issue. And I do not think what happens here will set policy. (It sound like you think this is a project wide problem. If so, then LvMI may be a good place to start with the cleanup.) The question is:

3823:

Unfortunately, critics/opponents of various subjects/articles often are more motivated to add negative material than less motivated editors (including myself) are to add neutral or positive info.(Of course,

3372:

It's quite surprising that you are not understanding the policies and their applications after they've been cited to you by several editors in this matter. Nonetheless, assuming good faith, please review:

1822:

would be crab apples versus Granny Smiths—nothing so different as oranges. One group does not like the other but the template is formed by the widely reported connections. It does not highlight the schism.

4674:

Mayer is one of the items in the above RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? RfC was opened because of the "off-topic" section. (Also threaded above). –

3732:

The current one is a complete misfire. The question posed there was never an issue at the article, and the question at the article has not been posed there, and someone incorrectly implied that it was.

3353:"The in-article content is a claim about an organization, not an individual, so per WP:BLPGROUP it wouldn't get the same treatment. So my advice is to proceed as if this were a normal, non-BLP dispute." 4350:

I guess it depends on how you parse it. Rothbard was an American economist. Rothbard was highly influential. Both true. Putting them together like that almost makes it sound as if her were influential

198:

Please work on finding sources -- and write the article to describe what the sources say, not what you think they should say. Please discuss your proposed content here before adding it the article. --

2623:

on. Polemics are a means to an end, and Rothbard certainly used this means, however he was never a polemicist by trade—rather, he was a theorist who put forward his theories in a vigorous manner.

1645:

Yes, and the sky is blue, but none of that bears on the matter at hand. The template is about various elements of the Austrian School, and the template should be included here in this article.

3534:

he has said about LvMI and its history before he was there. SPS simply does not allow us to add such material, true or not because it is a personal blog and he talks about third persons. –

1482:

select two authors and combine information from other sources about those authors, and thereby say "revisionism" (or anything else) is the focus of the institution, you are cherrypicking. –

1412:

secondary sources that support this idea? If there are, then such sources should be used. But this selection of an old, reprinted article from one of the people involved with Mises.org is

3484:

I removed a personal blog from Callahan in which he speculates about the history of the LvMI. Admittedly he does not know what had happened, but that does not matter. His personal blog is

2302:

If there is RS that supports description of the views of the institution, that would be great. But if the section violates policy, even for 5 years, there is no valid reason to keep it. –

2165:

29 – SPLC – a cite to SPLC's article "The Idealogues" regarding Donald Livingston & Thomas DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo is described as a senior scholar & Livingston as an adjunct scholar.

2809:

at this point, obtaining consensus before going any further. I suggest that proposed wordings are provided and a suitable time is allowed for the input of the various involved parties. -

2041:

aren't necessarily the same thing. Most university articles that list an endowment do cite data published by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO,

3440:

Oh, boy, another crappy source used. Since Srich obviously doesn't want to go to a noticeboard on this or the other one (and others I may find if read through quick) I guess I'll do it.

334:

I have a few hours free this weekend. Do you have any suggestions on a section to work on? I'll Post the changes/updates here (for debate) before incorporating them into the article. --

3394:

I want to be clear that my comments on SRich's talk page were limited to exactly what I addressed there: The content that he referenced does not appear to be a BLP violation. That does

920:

Rich was wrong; the RSN was only on whether that source could be used for the cult claim. He just got you to cause further damage to this article. But don't worry, it'll all come back.

4441:

There's definitely enough here to say something semi-attributed, along the lines of "conservative economists consider Rothbard's anti-Keynesian, pro-Austrian writings to be powerful".

3151:

distinguished the contributors seem to be, it is "largely not acceptable". Also, where are the academic reviews, let alone academic peer-reviews, of BHL? And since the blog mentions

4519:

It is unfortunate there is a WP:RSN, a WP:ANI and a WP:BLPN on this and related types of criticism with similar sources. Hopefully we will get a definitive answer in one of these.

3174:

BLP, RS, BURDEN etc. doesn't invalidate this text. The text is short and simple. Nobody has proposed stating in WP's voice that Mises Institute is a den of evil. Please drop it.

3115:

I added a source from Bleeding Heart Libertarians, a website which serves as a forum for academic discourse among libertarians, most of whom are tenured university professors (see:

597: 2344:

is an organization. We could try to find RS summaries of the Institute's bylaws but would that really be notable? Srich, while you're at it you should raise the same proposal on

870:

Thanks for explaining. That inserted item is peculiar; it appears to be presented out of context and it's an excessively long direct quotation. I won't touch it for now, though. --

3833:(Mises Institute might produce more/better hits). And same can be done with books and scholar google. From Highbeam, things of interest, though I might not include all myself: 1394:

For these reasons, your attempted changes are harmful to the article. Of course, it doesn't help any that you edit-warred and violated BRD, even after being warned in advance.

2805:

I've reverted purely on a technicality - I have no opinion regarding the edit but if people are going to cite BRD then they should also follow it. To do so requires that you

2114: 2168:

30 – has two links. One has a "page not found" error at the New Republic page. The other link has the New Republic material and also described DiLorenzo as a senior scholar.

2487:

The answer is, clearly yes. Ok, now that we've settled that, we can move on to more interesting issues, such as what the walls of the Institute think about global warming.

1678:

This is a template composition issue. Navigation templates (such as sidebars) simply serve to direct readers to related articles. Inclusion of Mises.org in the template is

3657: 4453:

Given sanctions, it's probably best to discuss this thoroughly before making changes. Still, this is a valuable source. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.

3420:

To be sure, any source may be vetted on RSN. The only BLP issue was the serial deletions of text using "BLP" as a trump card where it is clearly inapplicable. Thanks.

1305:

No. I opened this thread so that the off-topic material could be discussed. Please reply and address whether or not the material provides direct support as required by

1841:. Anyway, you can't risk libeling those who don't wish to be implied mixed up with Mises. It's a BLP violation every time you reinserted it instead of talk. Thanks. 2171:

31 – links to an archived LewRockwell.com blog posting by Thomas Woods where he discusses his past involvement in the League of the South. Mises.org is not mentioned.

4313:

Ok, I found it this time. I must have made a typo in the search box or something. Was Skousen the younger actually published by the LvMI or was that a hypothetical.

2194:

Page for the quote cited is not given. From the footnote it is not clear that Rockwell was responding to the 2000 SPLC Intelligence report mentioned in footnote 33.

1391:

should be characterized as sharing the beliefs of an arbitrary member. There's no slippery slope between describing notable views and generalizing past our sources.

367:(edited for formatting) Indeed. Also worth note is the following statement: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care." I would remind you of 3095:

I note the following: 1. No response was made to this BRD thread. 2. This particular Friedman blog material, which I tagged as SPS, has recently been removed. –

195:

It's desirable for the lead to summarize the views of critics, but it's not fatal if the article exists for another week or so without that content in the lead.

1049:

In the meantime, I'd like to remind you that there was no consensus supporting either of the versions you've created. You are acting outside of your authority.

3131:

only applies to self-published sources (meaning sources published by one person), and the content of BHL is published and reviewed by a dozen or so academics.

164:

Why can't discussion with the community at large be had to reach consciousness before changes are made? The article looks significantly less bias currently. --

2772:

Sitush, please try to be civil, and not use terms like "bile" or engage in speculation about the enforcement of sanctions. Focus on content, not contributors.

4539:

unnecessarily changes a statement of fact from a RS to an attributed statement. There is no reason to attribute this statement, precisely because it's a RS.

1940:. The reference originally linked to total assets rather than the endowment value. The endowment value I posted was from the organization's Form 990, which 4336:(2008), the same publisher used by Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. Some editors objected to his comment, "Rothbard was a highly influential American economist." 2005:. If the endowment was considered an important aspect of the Institute, don't you think it would have been reported or discussed by a secondary source? -- 3581:

You're overgeneralizing. The conclusion was that we couldn't use a particular source to say a particular thing. It wasn't that these sources are invalid.

274: 4469:

may be incorrect, because Friedman could be considered conservative too. Ironically neither Rothbard nor Friedman considered themselves conservatives.

188:

The latest chapter in what seems to be a long-running edit war over this page is contention over a sentence in the lead section that says something like

3037:

later, which of course he did. (Couldn't help but add, but as soon as I see revert and hear some absurd rationale I'll get ticked and be out of here.)

1631:

I think both of you have missed the point: LmVI being Austrian does not mean that these mainline Austrians are LmVI. LmVI is a subset of the superset.

269: 3665:

for attacking a whole anti-state political view that some editors don't agree with. Lot of cutting out and adding in to do to make this article NPOV.

3016:

until he was 60, when a private (non-academic) source paid UNLV to endow a chair for him), this seems superfluous but not at all objectionable to me.

935:

that some of the users involved with this page have more interest in fanning the flames of a Knowledge dispute than in improving the encyclopedia. --

4057:

Just above where we are having a discussion. That editor is part of that discussion. There is no need to start a new section for the discussion.

1273:

iscuss phase, so please justify whatever additions or changes you think should be made. Garner community consensus. Please meet the requirements of

133: 2251:

of the citations say anything about LvMI . That is, they do not say "The views of the Ludwig von Mises Institute are.... " They are not RS because

1291:

That doesn't make any sense at all. The best I can make out of it is that you intend to edit-war. That would be unfortunate, particularly for you.

2995:- there is no well-defined point but people do frequently find themselves in trouble for breaching it, usually because it becomes self-evident. - 2523:

Check your premises. The LvMI scholars whose articles are published by the LvMI are not "loosely associated", so your conclusion does not follow.

1837:

Austrian School" Your premise and sincerely held belief is incorrect. Also, let's not talk about "group" likes and dislikes, it is amorphous and

375:

with this post. Saying that you plan to make revisions for the sake of making revisions seems counteractive to the advice in the link you've made.

2684:

Bink, you removed "polemicist", but your bold change was reverted. Instead of waiting for some sort of consensus, you edit-warred. Please follow

2128:

With these guidelines and policy in mind, this commentary is about the section titled "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars".

789: 192:. This statement may be true, but I find that the sources that have been cited in the article and the lead don't fully support the statement. 1595:, you should start your own School to complete the intra-Austrian schism. Get your new School recognized and described in reliable sources. 1584:

Specifico, if you think that the template listing all the Austrian School elements is a BLP problem, you are free to raise the question at

979:

Thank you to Orlady for removing the hyenas comment which was a clear violation of the neutral tone we are supposed to be establishing per

3071:

with an edit summary of "Undo removal of valid sourced comment. Stated reasons for deletion are invalid. Use talk if you disagree." Well,

2742:

it is sourced. There is no point in spreading more bile and disagreement when it already seems likely that sanctions will be enforced). -

3934:

As you know, I don't favor googling as a research tool, but I do look forward to seeing whatever text you propose to add to the article.

2502: 503: 3146:

Here is the policy verbatim: "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or

3765:

Well, the main point is that the RSN question has absolutely NOTHING to do with with the main question on inclusion in this article.

222:

This very clearly identifies Rockwell and his Institute as far right. On this basis, the page must be unlocked so that we can fix it.

4409: 3208:? If it was, then we wouldn't have an issue about reliability. But, as per the guideline I have quoted, it cannot be used if it is a 1190:. Of course many LvMI "scholars" have opined on a variety of subjects, but where is the RS that says their opinions are the opinions 313: 4166:

I don't see these sources as borderline. I think it's a sign that the LvMI is largely ignored outside of the libertarian community.

3877:

Doherty book review of “Rothbard vs. the Philosophers”, by Murray Rothbard, edited by Roberta A. Modugno, Ludwig von Mises Institute

417:

Institute and really, really don't like unflattering but true things about it in the article. In other words, they came to violate

4659:"is an MBA student at the University of Maryland". Why? Where is the evidence that he is representative of anyone but himself? - 2650:

gives advice. We do not want one article to describe someone in one set of terms and have another article use different terms. –

405: 3326: 2611: 2208:

37 – Mises.org – David Evan's skeptical article about climate change consensus. (Evans is not listed in the Mises.org faculty.)

2099: 1534: 4554:

It has to be attributed, it is the opinions of two authors from the SPLC. Given the SPLC is not what one would call "neutral"

2664:

We don't lack for reliable sources describing him as a polemicist, so why would you want to remove this from either article?

2561: 502:

For all we know, MilesMoney, you could have posted that reddit thread yourself. You can't say this "confirms" meat puppetry.

91: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3563:

It does not matter that his thoughts are relevant to the institute, the editing issue is the proper usage of what he wrote.

1350:

Are you trying to suggest that material about the members of the Institute is irrelevant to an article about the Institute?

1228:

discussion. I've removed off-topic material and tagged the section as off-topic and started the discussion. Please reply. –

254:

Apparently when you refer to "this source", you are referring to Arthur Goldwag. (You didn't mention his name, and the book

3123:

criticized the Mises Institute's association with racists and Holocaust Deniers. Another user deleted this source based on

2284:

This section has been in the article for over 5 years and neither you nor anyone else has suggested blanking it until now.

3548:

That does not appear to be what policy says. Rather, as a member of the Institute, he is free to discuss it all he likes.

2345: 2198:

35 – Mises.org – Kinsella's views and criticisms of intellectual property law, comparing it with "genuine property rights"

2157:

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer 1998 "Immigration Symposium" (provided to show "Mises scholars" hold diverse views on immigration)

2612:

Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute § RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?

2205:(presented as an article published by Mises.org which expresses doubt about the "scientific consensus on climate change" 286:

from a variety of different sources. Note also that, in Knowledge, a "source" refers a published work, not a person. --

2150:

Chapter 5 (provided to support the idea that Mises scholars think democracy is "replete with inner contradictions")

3294:: You have not answered the question. Without addressing the issues, you cannot say the BLP issue is "debunked". – 2110: 1968: 776: 38: 3986: 4596: 4563: 4474: 4415: 4381: 4341: 4283: 4251: 4216: 4186: 3713:

Actually, I agree. Notifying individual editors without leaving a big note on the article talk page may count as

2572: 2143:

by Amy Chua (provided to support idea that Mises scholars think democracy is "incompatible with wealth creation")

3717:

in some cases. I don't think that's the case here, or even the intent, but it's definitely best not to risk it.

3530:

that would be one thing. But Callahan's personal blog goes on to topics other than himself. I don't argue with

1945: 1535:

Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute § Off-topic section: .22Views espoused by founders .26 organization scholars.22

614:

That source (like many of the sources in this article) is a journalist's opinion (specifically, the opinion of

2131:

As it stands now, the section has 3 subsections, referenced by footnotes 23–37 (15 citations). Here they are:

1118: 847:

After the Callahan blog RSN was completed, there was a partial removal – material related to the "cult" claim

260: 507: 2554: 1413: 754: 458:

The discussion thread's header should not change after people have been responding. I have changed it back.

125: 4588: 700: 1082:

It does not relate to anything here, and you did not acknowledge the lack of consensus for your changes.

3201: 2628: 2326: 1893: 1865: 1827: 1754: 1730:

If the problem is the inclusion of Mises.org in the template, then propose a change in the template. –

1650: 1600: 988: 463: 472:

Actually, it's not supposed to change at all unless there's a really good reason. You've offered none.

3882:

Denson, editor, Reassessing the Presidency: the Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom

2160:

27 & 28 – two of the eight Immigration Symposium selections by Walter Block and Hans-Hermann Hoppe

790:

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy

105:

the handful of neutral or even beneficial changes mixed in with the bad, but that's the price we pay.

4680: 4592: 4578: 4559: 4544: 4509: 4470: 4458: 4411: 4399: 4377: 4359: 4337: 4318: 4279: 4275: 4265: 4247: 4230: 4212: 4201: 4182: 4171: 4140: 4112: 4080: 4047: 3971: 3756: 3722: 3643: 3619: 3586: 3572: 3553: 3539: 3517: 3498: 3343: 3314: 3299: 3262: 3225: 3164: 3136: 3100: 3085: 3021: 2967: 2902: 2829: 2796: 2781: 2737:

Hm. I know next to nothing about the subject matter but picking up on Srich's point, the emphasis at

2716: 2693: 2669: 2655: 2580: 2528: 2514: 2492: 2478: 2437: 2384: 2334: 2307: 2274: 1979: 1907: 1879: 1792: 1735: 1687: 1667: 1636: 1622: 1571: 1501: 1487: 1469: 1450: 1435: 1421: 1399: 1381: 1355: 1340: 1314: 1296: 1282: 1248: 1233: 1215: 1199: 1171: 1134: 1087: 1054: 1040: 1006: 958: 925: 911: 861: 801: 649: 605: 574: 559: 555: 523: 477: 448: 426: 401: 397: 393: 386: 382: 358: 339: 335: 321: 241: 227: 169: 165: 155: 141: 110: 47: 17: 4504:

I urge the editor to revert immediately, but I will not touch the article without a full consensus.

1546:

the center of Austrian Economics. WP cannot support self-promotion from the vMI as if it were fact.

4655:

We seem to be giving a lot of attention to the opinions of Christopher Mayer who, according to his

4005: 3942: 3911: 3772: 3740: 3631: 3509: 3428: 3384: 3362: 3322: 3243: 3182: 2465: 2455: 2413: 2360: 2292: 2038: 1849: 1809: 1775: 1719: 1554: 684: 949:

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you talking about yourself or are you violating

4333: 4157: 4095: 3662: 2948: 2647: 2121: 2002: 1153: 891: 129: 2549:

views can be expounded upon. As editors, here, in this article, we must stay on topic and write

792:) and determined to be non-RS. (This determination was made while the article was under PP. The 312:

It turns out that all of these independent, new editors are just meat puppets dragged here by a

1148:

In reaction to MM's edit. A couple of articles on history revisionism doesn't make it a focus.

150:

I can't seem to find any meaning in your comment, so I'm going to just do what I said I would.

4521: 4023: 3928: 3892: 3809: 3784: 3714: 3667: 3442: 3205: 3039: 2981: 2565: 2558: 2069: 2028: 1993: 1953: 1932:

Hopefully the endowment value is a less controversial topic. I corrected the endowment value

1801:

I'm working with Sirch on his talk page. Perhaps there's too much crosstalk here. We'll see.

1610: 1274: 4438:

merely the expected whining of Keynesians. Criticism from a fan and ally is honest criticism.

1992:

As I noted in my edit summary when I deleted the item, the IRS Form 990 is a primary source.

4698: 4664: 4641: 4621: 4573:

status to the SPLC. Attribution is not necessary because this source is not seen as biased.

4555: 3703: 3411: 3156: 3000: 2918: 2866: 2844: 2814: 2747: 2624: 2054: 2010: 1889: 1861: 1823: 1750: 1646: 1596: 1592: 1073: 1025: 984: 940: 875: 834: 796:

was not implemented after the PP was removed and before the current PP was implemented.) –

728: 634: 620: 600:

is a solid, reliable source for describing the Institute as right-wing and neo-Confederate.

459: 291: 203: 4260:

I'm trying to refresh my memory, but I don't see anything about him on that talk page now.

3212:. (Which it is.) Horwitz and the BHLs might have opinions about a lot of subjects, but his 2688:. Explain how the sources calling him a polemicist are somehow invalid, or leave it alone. 4676: 4574: 4540: 4505: 4454: 4395: 4355: 4314: 4261: 4226: 4197: 4167: 4136: 4126: 4108: 4076: 4062: 4043: 3991: 3967: 3848:

Media appearances which could include more to be found in a paragraph in relevant section:

3752: 3718: 3639: 3615: 3582: 3568: 3549: 3535: 3513: 3494: 3339: 3295: 3258: 3221: 3160: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3096: 3081: 3017: 2963: 2898: 2825: 2792: 2777: 2738: 2712: 2689: 2665: 2651: 2639: 2576: 2550: 2524: 2510: 2488: 2474: 2433: 2380: 2330: 2303: 2270: 2106: 1998: 1975: 1903: 1875: 1788: 1731: 1683: 1663: 1632: 1618: 1567: 1497: 1483: 1465: 1446: 1431: 1417: 1395: 1377: 1365: 1351: 1336: 1310: 1292: 1278: 1244: 1229: 1211: 1195: 1167: 1130: 1083: 1050: 1036: 1002: 954: 921: 907: 857: 797: 645: 626: 601: 570: 519: 473: 444: 422: 354: 317: 237: 223: 151: 137: 121: 106: 4090:

since it is a criticism section, where having good sources are extra important. Regards,

3159:

is on OP to show why we should include it. I submit that the burden has not been met. –

2115:

Ludwig von Mises Institute and opinions of various persons associated with the institute

3998: 3935: 3904: 3825: 3421: 3377: 3355: 3318: 3291: 3236: 3175: 3120: 2448: 2406: 2353: 2349: 2285: 1842: 1802: 1768: 1712: 1585: 1547: 1065: 1017: 980: 677: 615: 584: 418: 350: 264:

Mises Institute." That doesn't support the statement that was made in the article lede.

4702: 4684: 4668: 4645: 4625: 4600: 4582: 4567: 4548: 4525: 4513: 4478: 4462: 4419: 4403: 4385: 4363: 4345: 4322: 4287: 4269: 4255: 4234: 4220: 4205: 4190: 4175: 4161: 4144: 4130: 4116: 4099: 4084: 4066: 4051: 4027: 4010: 3975: 3947: 3916: 3896: 3813: 3788: 3776: 3760: 3744: 3726: 3707: 3671: 3647: 3623: 3590: 3576: 3557: 3543: 3521: 3502: 3446: 3433: 3415: 3389: 3367: 3347: 3303: 3266: 3248: 3229: 3187: 3168: 3140: 3104: 3089: 3043: 3025: 3004: 2985: 2971: 2922: 2906: 2870: 2848: 2833: 2818: 2800: 2785: 2751: 2720: 2697: 2673: 2659: 2632: 2584: 2532: 2518: 2496: 2482: 2460: 2441: 2418: 2388: 2365: 2338: 2311: 2297: 2278: 2073: 2058: 2032: 2014: 1983: 1957: 1911: 1897: 1883: 1869: 1854: 1831: 1814: 1796: 1780: 1758: 1739: 1724: 1691: 1671: 1654: 1640: 1626: 1604: 1575: 1559: 1505: 1491: 1473: 1454: 1439: 1425: 1403: 1385: 1359: 1344: 1318: 1300: 1286: 1252: 1237: 1219: 1203: 1175: 1157: 1138: 1091: 1077: 1058: 1044: 1029: 1010: 992: 962: 944: 929: 915: 879: 865: 838: 805: 732: 689: 653: 638: 609: 591: 578: 563: 527: 511: 481: 467: 452: 430: 409: 362: 343: 325: 295: 245: 231: 207: 173: 159: 145: 114: 4498: 4494: 4243: 4153: 4091: 4018: 3804: 3685: 3635: 3564: 3485: 3403: 2928: 2685: 1149: 998: 950: 720: 588: 372: 368: 283: 236:

Before anyone asks, the Selgin quote elsewhere on the page talks all about culthood.

4242:, whom we discussed at the Rothbard talk page. Not to be confused with his father, 3656:

Hmmm, how many questionable WP:RS do we have saying something about racism? I found

2947:

by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute

906:

bleedingheartlibertarians.com blog comments are posted at footnotes 15 & 16. –

213:

Rather than debate what this source says, I'll quote from his book, "The New Hate":

190:

Critics have called it "right wing" and compared the followers of Rothbard to a cult

4373: 4239: 3399: 3193: 2992: 2538: 2065: 2024: 1949: 1838: 1306: 3843: 1874:

Associating them with the LmVI may well qualify as an attack on their reputation.

4075:

I don't see it. Be more specific. This means live discussions, not settled ones.

3876: 3860: 3855: 3837: 3116: 381:

Perhaps the community at large can discuss your issues to reach a conclusion. --

4694: 4660: 4637: 4617: 3881: 3699: 3407: 3334: 2996: 2914: 2862: 2840: 2810: 2743: 2139:

24 – Mises.org – by Joseph Potts, who studies econ at home, discussing the book

2050: 2006: 1069: 1021: 1001:

and then explain precisely what aspect is violates. Quotes or it didn't happen.

936: 871: 830: 724: 630: 436: 287: 199: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2100:

Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute § Off topic section on the "Mises.org scholars"

4122: 4058: 3254: 2247:

So there are three major problems that this listing exposes. One, we see that

4328:

Skousen has written articles for the LvMI's journal, but the book presented,

3658:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_156#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

3604:

I note that the particular paragraph has been revised recently. It now reads:

853:. The material now in article was inserted later (sans talk page discussion) 3217: 1941: 1902:

Yes, it'll be hard for you, since you have the burden when it comes to BLP.

583:

The lead should summarize the rest of the article, including criticism, per

2088:

Off-topic section: "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars"

4587:

Who says it is not biased? Hell, even the way they count "hate groups" is

2568: 2541:

is the LvMI president and has more than a "loose" association. Well then,

4370:

The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers

2201:

36 – Mises.org – David Gordon's review of Christopher Horner's 2008 book

1210:

wind up as a historical footnote, not part of the future of the article.

2711:

Princeton, and I wrote "Professor of Economics" at Princeton University?

2962:

I don't think that could be any clearer: Binksternet was edit-warring.

1682:

an article issue. Bring it up on the template talk page if you wish. –

3512:. A member of the Institute is a reliable source about the Institute. 4445:

critique of the two schools he taught at. This allows us to avoid OR.

3869:

Notable books published by Institute could be a paragraph or section:

2537:

The premise holds up quite well. Of the various persons cited above,

2244:

was found and added to the article text.15:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

2125:

style, and that requires us to focus on the article and its' topic.

699:

In order for the lead section to be a true summary, as described in

2642:

article. As there is a general description there (whatever it is),

1566:

much less with restoring it without adequately explaining himself.

1478:

They sell 420 different books by dozens of different authors. When

1335:

variety of opinions, about a variety of subjects, is off topic. –

2174:

32 – Reason.com page about Thomas Wood. Mises.org is not mentioned

256:

The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right

2375:, therefore you are not on sound ground when you raise the issue 278:

descriptive words in the SPLC characterization of the Institute.)

2019:

I don't think the number from melissadata.com was incorrect for

1496:

It's not cherrypicking to select the founder's essays, either.

1430:

No need to pick a single cherry when there's a bushel of them.

2240:

and . This was done because more accurate citation data as to

742: 25: 4656: 788:

This specific paragraph was the subject of a RSN discussion (

316:. It's time to unlock the page and block all of the puppets. 4019:

Knowledge:ANI#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

2223:

citation is incomplete, so judgment is reserved on that one.

1376:

any connection between any such views and the institute. –

1888:

Saying so is easy. Proving it will be much more difficult.

850:. The entire Callahan blog material was then removed by me 4135:

If we were, then one or both of you could point me to it.

2939:: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a 2853:

Specifically, there was a substantial difference between

2042: 2638:

The question of how to describe Rothbard is one for the

2405:

should be taken seriously. It's a long shot. Tally ho!

4536: 4490: 4246:, whose books have been re-popularized by Glenn Beck. 4039: 3963: 3844:

Univ Press release on LVMI publishing professors papers

3490: 3482: 3374: 3352: 3309: 3127:; this is a flagrant misunderstanding of policy, since 3069: 3065: 2858: 2854: 1937: 1933: 1458: 1409: 1164: 854: 851: 848: 441: 1068:

is good advice that I intend to continue to follow. --

2064:

see if others agree with including this information.

2471:

does this section comply with policy and guidelines?

1261:

old starts off. In this case, there were some prior

775:

Request removal of the following paragraph found in

4225:Could you please refresh my memory: who's Skousen? 3831:

Google News archive of "ludwig von mises institute"

2897:shouldn't try to accommodate Binksternet's intent. 2371:they strawmen? (Rich, you haven't raised the issue 1224:Sorry, MilesMoney, BRD does not suggest a need for 3493:not involve a subject in which he is an expert. – 2501:I'll suggest we need more than a "green" level of 1257:BRD, a valuable essay, does not tell us where the 3398:imply that the blog is therefore acceptable as a 3119:for a list of contributors). The BHL source from 2564:was first published in 1927 by Houghton Mifflin ( 1944:posted after receiving the 990 directly from the 378:What changes do you currently have problems with? 4433:There's some good material in here. Key points: 1186:This section strays from the topic of Mises.org 596:Yes, and the article should follow our sources. 3606: 2236:– some of the comments above were modified via 781: 4449:politics" at the expense of his academic work. 3985:A BLP Noticeboard thread has been posted here 3684:I see that various sources have been taken to 2927:When people mention rules, I read up on them. 184:Please discuss content instead of edit-warring 4354:an economist, and that's much less credible. 1182:Off topic section on the "Mises.org scholars" 8: 2049:about the financial data on its Form 990. -- 4181:you are showing an inconsistent standard. 3962:This article is under sanctions, so why is 1277:so that the material might be restored. – 1269:everted them. In any event, I started the 3489:The material I removed was restored here 1125:. In reading the Rockwell piece, he does 3805:Knowledge:ANI#Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute 2913:Binksternet should accept the revert. - 2646:should be used here for WP consistency. 1994:Primary sources generally are to avoided 3155:s, the greatest care must be used. The 2447:article will not establish the policy. 2146:25 – Mises.org – a cite to Mises' book 2955:a policy that all editors must follow. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3838:Prof. Pascal Salin saying nice things 3526:If Callahan was simply talking about 3477:Callahan personal blog material (BRD) 1457:The particular edit by MilesMoney is 777:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Criticisms 7: 4121:We are having a "real" discussion. 132:appropriate content, and appreciate 3958:Edit-warring under the guise of BLP 3799:General sanctions have been applied 2249:none (with one possible exception) 542:Comments regarding article content 24: 3861:Woods for LVMI interviewed on NPR 3402:. You should take that matter to 1860:part of it you are referring to. 134:WP:CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 3981:BLPN concerning Bernstein/Volokh 3200:what it contains. Is it vetted 3111:Deletion of RS based on WP:Blogs 2605: 2571:). What does that tell us about 2093: 1528: 1129:say anything about Mises.org. – 812: 746: 435: 29: 4693:OK, added my thoughts there. - 3567:says we cannot use his blog. – 3060:Friedman personal blog material 1936:. It was subsequently removed 1460:. 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1112:Rockwell denial of "right wing" 128:, follow WP editing policy IOT 2155:Journal of Libertarian Studies 1119:"What is Left? What is Right?" 160:00:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 146:00:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 115:22:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 1: 3966:sort of thing being allowed? 3434:17:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 3416:16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 3390:00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 3368:00:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 3348:00:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 2346:American Enterprise Institute 2183:The link appears to summarize 389:) 04:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 4703:00:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 4685:00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 4669:00:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 4646:23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4626:23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4601:20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4583:20:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4568:20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4558:says attribution is needed. 4549:19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4526:19:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4514:19:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4479:17:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4463:16:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4420:15:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4404:15:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4386:06:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4364:05:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4346:04:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4323:02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4288:02:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4270:00:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4256:23:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4235:23:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4221:23:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4206:22:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4191:22:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4176:21:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4162:20:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4145:20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4131:20:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4117:20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4100:20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4085:20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4067:20:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4052:20:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 4038:Where is the discussion for 4028:17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 4011:16:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 3976:03:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 3948:23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3917:17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 3897:16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 3814:22:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3789:22:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3777:21:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3761:20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3745:18:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3727:18:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3708:09:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 3680:Suggestion re: RSN referrals 3672:15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 3648:22:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 3624:20:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 3591:15:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3577:14:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3558:07:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3544:06:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3522:06:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3503:05:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3447:14:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 3406:, if you haven't already. -- 3105:05:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 3090:04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 3044:14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3026:19:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3005:14:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2986:13:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2972:13:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2923:06:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2907:06:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2871:06:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2849:06:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2834:06:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2819:06:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2801:06:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2786:06:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2752:05:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2721:05:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2698:05:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2674:05:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2660:04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2633:03:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 2585:15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2533:06:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2519:05:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2497:05:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2483:04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2461:04:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2442:03:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2419:03:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2389:04:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2366:03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2339:03:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2312:03:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2298:03:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2279:02:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2074:00:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) 2059:22:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2033:17:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 2015:16:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1984:15:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1958:14:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 1912:05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 1898:05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 1884:04:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 1870:04:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 1855:23:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1832:23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1815:23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1797:22:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1781:22:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1759:22:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1740:19:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1725:18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1692:04:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1672:04:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1655:04:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1641:04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1627:03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1605:03:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1576:03:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1560:02:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1506:16:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1492:16:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1474:16:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1455:16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1440:16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1426:15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1404:14:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1386:14:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1360:07:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1345:07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1319:06:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1301:06:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1287:06:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1253:06:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1238:05:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1220:05:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1204:05:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1176:16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1158:16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1139:15:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 455:05:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 371:. You may also be violating 3890:More can be added below... 3856:Thorton interviewed on NPR 3304:23:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 3267:16:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 3249:16:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 3230:15:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 3188:14:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 3169:06:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 3141:06:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2428:. The article is about the 2192:Rockwell with 33 speeches. 2153:26 – Mises.org – a cite to 2109:of this article? Is it the 1092:04:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 1078:04:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 1059:04:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 1045:04:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 1030:04:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 1011:03:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 993:02:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 963:21:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 945:21:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 930:21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 916:20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 880:20:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 866:20:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 839:20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 806:19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 769:to reactivate your request. 757:has been answered. Set the 733:18:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 690:17:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 654:17:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 639:17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 610:15:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 592:14:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 579:14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 564:06:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 528:14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 518:Please don't try to BS me. 512:06:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 482:14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 468:13:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 453:05:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 431:05:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 410:04:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 363:03:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 344:03:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 326:01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 296:06:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 246:01:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 232:00:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 208:22:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC) 174:04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 4721: 4485:More deletion of criticism 3192:The issue is what kind of 2603: 2111:Ludwig von Mises Institute 2091: 1609:The idea that including a 1591:Rather than arguing about 1526: 2892:The version you reverted 2573:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2545:article is the one where 1265:old edits and I have now 1123:The American Conservative 696:elsewhere in the article. 4368:He does not say that in 4016:ANI discussion is here: 2148:Man, Economy & State 1946:Internal Revenue Service 4532:Unnecessary attribution 4408:See p. 390 of his book. 3508:The relevant policy is 1163:The particular edit is 3611: 3073:my edit summary stands 1617:is in the template. – 786: 4493:. The comment claims 4394:he say in that book? 4274:It is still there on 3196:do we have with BHL, 2327:climate change denial 2001:and various forms of 42:of past discussions. 4276:Talk:Murray Rothbard 2618:Polemicist revisited 2505:. But RS as to what 2352:and a dozen others. 1593:who is more Austrian 1144:Focus of insittution 18:Talk:Mises Institute 4332:, was published by 2426:precise and concise 2373:with those articles 2242:Speaking of Liberty 2221:Speaking of Liberty 2186:Speaking of Liberty 1997:huge potential for 1541:Austrian School Box 100:Tendentious editing 4334:Regnery Publishing 1368:of the article is 308:Meat puppet edits? 4522:User:Carolmooredc 4024:User:Carolmooredc 3929:User:Carolmooredc 3893:User:Carolmooredc 3810:User:Carolmooredc 3785:User:Carolmooredc 3668:User:Carolmooredc 3443:User:Carolmooredc 3331: 3317:comment added by 3040:User:Carolmooredc 2982:User:Carolmooredc 2250: 2239: 2224: 2195: 2191: 2184: 2181:34 – Mises.org – 1969:Infobox institute 1464:ignore all this. 1188:as an institution 895: 773: 772: 413: 396:comment added by 97: 96: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4712: 4003: 3995: 3940: 3909: 3819:Adding NPOV info 3770: 3738: 3426: 3382: 3360: 3330: 3311: 3241: 3180: 2644:that description 2609: 2608: 2555:WP:Summary style 2453: 2411: 2358: 2290: 2248: 2237: 2218: 2193: 2189: 2182: 2097: 2096: 1973: 1967: 1847: 1807: 1773: 1717: 1552: 1532: 1531: 1414:WP:CHERRYPICKING 1374:directly support 1192:of the institute 889: 820: 816: 815: 764: 760: 750: 749: 743: 682: 621:The New Republic 439: 412: 390: 126:WP:TALKEDABOUTIT 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4720: 4719: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4653: 4633: 4613: 4593:Darkness Shines 4560:Darkness Shines 4534: 4487: 4036: 3999: 3989: 3983: 3960: 3936: 3905: 3821: 3801: 3766: 3734: 3682: 3479: 3422: 3400:reliable source 3378: 3356: 3312: 3237: 3176: 3113: 3062: 2739:Murray Rothbard 2640:Murray Rothbard 2620: 2615: 2614: 2606: 2449: 2407: 2354: 2286: 2253:context matters 2103: 2102: 2094: 2090: 1971: 1965: 1930: 1843: 1803: 1769: 1713: 1548: 1543: 1538: 1537: 1529: 1184: 1146: 1114: 813: 811: 762: 758: 747: 741: 701:WP:Lead section 678: 544: 391: 310: 186: 122:User:MilesMoney 102: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4718: 4716: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4688: 4687: 4652: 4649: 4632: 4629: 4612: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4533: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4486: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4451: 4450: 4446: 4442: 4439: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4330:Economic Logic 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4070: 4069: 4040:these new tags 4035: 4032: 4031: 4030: 3982: 3979: 3959: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3920: 3919: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3879: 3871: 3870: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3858: 3850: 3849: 3846: 3841: 3820: 3817: 3800: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3730: 3729: 3681: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3651: 3650: 3630:covered under 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3370: 3292:User:SPECIFICO 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3214:relevant field 3202:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 3112: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2945:reverted again 2943:should not be 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2821: 2773: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2619: 2616: 2604: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2350:Cato Institute 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2231: 2230: 2226: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2199: 2196: 2179: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2151: 2144: 2137: 2092: 2089: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2046: 1999:undue emphasis 1990: 1929: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1743: 1742: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1589: 1579: 1578: 1542: 1539: 1527: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1392: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1145: 1142: 1113: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1047: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 842: 841: 822: 821: 771: 770: 751: 740: 739:Edit protected 737: 736: 735: 716: 711:, rather than 704: 697: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 618:in a piece in 616:James Kirchick 543: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 379: 376: 309: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 279: 265: 234: 220: 219: 218: 185: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 101: 98: 95: 94: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4717: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4650: 4648: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4631:Southern folk 4630: 4628: 4627: 4623: 4619: 4611:Contradiction 4610: 4602: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4531: 4527: 4524: 4523: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4511: 4507: 4502: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4447: 4443: 4440: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4410: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4244:Cleon Skousen 4241: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4218: 4214: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4033: 4029: 4026: 4025: 4021: 4020: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4009: 4008: 4004: 4002: 3993: 3987: 3980: 3978: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3957: 3949: 3946: 3945: 3941: 3939: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3918: 3915: 3914: 3910: 3908: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3895: 3894: 3883: 3880: 3878: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3867: 3862: 3859: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3847: 3845: 3842: 3839: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3832: 3827: 3818: 3816: 3815: 3812: 3811: 3806: 3798: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3774: 3769: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3742: 3737: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3715:WP:CANVASSing 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3695: 3692: 3687: 3679: 3673: 3670: 3669: 3664: 3659: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3610: 3605: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3481:In this edit 3476: 3448: 3445: 3444: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3431: 3427: 3425: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3387: 3383: 3381: 3375: 3371: 3369: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3359: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3336: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3310: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3247: 3246: 3242: 3240: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3179: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3121:Steve Horwitz 3118: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3064:In this edit 3059: 3045: 3042: 3041: 3035: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2984: 2983: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2930: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2895: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2822: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2774: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2617: 2613: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2452: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2417: 2416: 2412: 2410: 2403: 2400: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2359: 2357: 2351: 2347: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2289: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2256: 2254: 2245: 2243: 2235: 2227: 2222: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2207: 2204: 2200: 2197: 2187: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2141:World on Fire 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2129: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2113:or is it the 2112: 2108: 2101: 2087: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1995: 1991: 1989:information.) 1987: 1986: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1970: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1927: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1846: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1820: 1816: 1813: 1812: 1808: 1806: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1779: 1778: 1774: 1772: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1716: 1709: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1551: 1540: 1536: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1461: 1459: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1410: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1143: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1111: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 947: 946: 942: 938: 933: 932: 931: 927: 923: 919: 918: 917: 913: 909: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 893: 892:edit conflict 881: 877: 873: 869: 868: 867: 863: 859: 855: 852: 849: 846: 845: 844: 843: 840: 836: 832: 827: 824: 823: 819: 810: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 795: 794:consensus RSN 791: 785: 780: 778: 768: 765:parameter to 756: 752: 745: 744: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 717: 714: 710: 705: 702: 698: 694: 693: 692: 691: 688: 687: 683: 681: 655: 651: 647: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 628: 623: 622: 617: 613: 612: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 594: 593: 590: 586: 582: 581: 580: 576: 572: 567: 566: 565: 561: 557: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 541: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 509: 505: 504:74.108.18.128 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 483: 479: 475: 471: 470: 469: 465: 461: 457: 456: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 434: 433: 432: 428: 424: 420: 415: 414: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 388: 384: 380: 377: 374: 370: 366: 365: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 347: 346: 345: 341: 337: 332: 328: 327: 323: 319: 315: 314:Reddit thread 307: 297: 293: 289: 285: 280: 276: 271: 266: 262: 257: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 243: 239: 235: 233: 229: 225: 221: 215: 214: 212: 211: 210: 209: 205: 201: 196: 193: 191: 183: 175: 171: 167: 163: 162: 161: 157: 153: 149: 148: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 118: 117: 116: 112: 108: 99: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4654: 4634: 4614: 4535: 4520: 4503: 4488: 4452: 4432: 4391: 4374:M. E. Sharpe 4369: 4351: 4329: 4312: 4240:Mark Skousen 4037: 4022: 4017: 4006: 4000: 3984: 3961: 3943: 3937: 3927: 3912: 3906: 3891: 3889: 3822: 3808: 3802: 3783: 3767: 3735: 3731: 3696: 3690: 3683: 3666: 3632:WP:ABOUTSELF 3612: 3607: 3603: 3531: 3527: 3510:WP:ABOUTSELF 3480: 3441: 3429: 3423: 3395: 3385: 3379: 3363: 3357: 3313:— Preceding 3244: 3238: 3213: 3209: 3197: 3183: 3177: 3152: 3147: 3114: 3076: 3072: 3063: 3038: 2980: 2952: 2949:edit warring 2944: 2940: 2936: 2893: 2891: 2806: 2643: 2621: 2546: 2542: 2539:Lew Rockwell 2506: 2470: 2466:WP:OTHERCRAP 2456: 2450: 2429: 2425: 2414: 2408: 2401: 2376: 2372: 2361: 2355: 2293: 2287: 2265: 2260: 2257: 2252: 2246: 2241: 2233: 2232: 2220: 2212:The totals: 2211: 2203:Red Hot Lies 2202: 2188:a 2003 book 2185: 2154: 2147: 2140: 2130: 2127: 2118: 2105:What is the 2104: 2021:total assets 2020: 1931: 1850: 1844: 1810: 1804: 1776: 1770: 1765: 1720: 1714: 1707: 1706: 1679: 1615:organization 1614: 1555: 1549: 1544: 1479: 1373: 1369: 1333: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1225: 1191: 1187: 1185: 1147: 1126: 1122: 1115: 997:Please read 888: 825: 817: 793: 787: 784:newsletters. 782: 774: 766: 755:edit request 712: 708: 685: 679: 674: 627:undue weight 619: 392:— Preceding 349:Please read 333: 329: 311: 275:Another page 255: 197: 194: 189: 187: 103: 75: 43: 37: 4657:cited piece 4489:Here we go 3663:WP:COATRACK 3376:. Thanks. 3335:User:RL0919 2648:WP:SURPRISE 2625:Binksternet 2178:allegation. 2122:WP:CRITERIA 2098:Moved from 2037:Assets and 2003:coatracking 1890:Binksternet 1862:Binksternet 1824:Binksternet 1751:Binksternet 1711:template. 1647:Binksternet 1597:Binksternet 985:Binksternet 460:Binksternet 130:WP:PRESERVE 36:This is an 4575:MilesMoney 4541:MilesMoney 4506:MilesMoney 4455:MilesMoney 4396:MilesMoney 4356:MilesMoney 4315:MilesMoney 4262:MilesMoney 4227:MilesMoney 4198:MilesMoney 4168:MilesMoney 4137:MilesMoney 4109:MilesMoney 4077:MilesMoney 4044:MilesMoney 3992:Srich32977 3968:MilesMoney 3753:Steeletrap 3719:MilesMoney 3640:MilesMoney 3583:MilesMoney 3550:MilesMoney 3514:MilesMoney 3255:group blog 3210:group blog 3206:WP:NEWSORG 3204:? Is it a 3133:Steeletrap 3018:Steeletrap 2964:MilesMoney 2899:MilesMoney 2826:Steeletrap 2793:MilesMoney 2778:Steeletrap 2713:Steeletrap 2690:MilesMoney 2666:MilesMoney 2562:0395925037 2525:MilesMoney 2489:MilesMoney 2331:Steeletrap 2238:small text 2043:nacubo.org 1904:MilesMoney 1876:MilesMoney 1789:MilesMoney 1664:MilesMoney 1633:MilesMoney 1611:WP:SIDEBAR 1568:MilesMoney 1498:MilesMoney 1466:MilesMoney 1432:MilesMoney 1408:This edit 1396:MilesMoney 1352:MilesMoney 1293:MilesMoney 1275:WP:PROVEIT 1245:MilesMoney 1212:MilesMoney 1084:MilesMoney 1051:MilesMoney 1037:MilesMoney 1003:MilesMoney 955:MilesMoney 922:MilesMoney 759:|answered= 723:or POV. -- 646:MilesMoney 602:MilesMoney 571:MilesMoney 556:BookishOwl 520:MilesMoney 474:MilesMoney 440:Why? See: 423:MilesMoney 398:BookishOwl 383:BookishOwl 355:MilesMoney 336:BookishOwl 318:MilesMoney 284:synthesize 238:MilesMoney 224:MilesMoney 166:BookishOwl 152:MilesMoney 107:MilesMoney 4591:suspect. 4556:WP:BIASED 4537:This edit 4001:SPECIFICO 3938:SPECIFICO 3907:SPECIFICO 3768:North8000 3736:North8000 3694:articles. 3424:SPECIFICO 3380:SPECIFICO 3358:SPECIFICO 3319:SPECIFICO 3253:Is BHL a 3239:SPECIFICO 3218:economics 3178:SPECIFICO 3157:WP:BURDEN 2610:Moved to 2569:731423728 2451:SPECIFICO 2430:institute 2409:SPECIFICO 2356:SPECIFICO 2288:SPECIFICO 2229:scholars. 2190:edited by 2039:endowment 1942:GuideStar 1928:Endowment 1845:SPECIFICO 1805:SPECIFICO 1771:SPECIFICO 1715:SPECIFICO 1550:SPECIFICO 1533:Moved to 1370:Mises.org 826:Question: 721:synthesis 680:SPECIFICO 120:I'm sure 92:Archive 7 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4154:Iselilja 4092:Iselilja 4034:New tags 3327:contribs 3315:unsigned 3129:WP:Blogs 3125:WP:Blogs 2951:, which 2551:WP:TERSE 2503:response 2136:graft".) 2107:WP:TOPIC 1366:WP:TOPIC 1150:Iselilja 709:describe 589:goethean 406:contribs 394:unsigned 4677:S. Rich 3826:WP:NPOV 3616:S. Rich 3569:S. Rich 3536:S. Rich 3528:himself 3495:S. Rich 3340:S. Rich 3296:S. Rich 3259:S. Rich 3235:point. 3222:S. Rich 3161:S. Rich 3097:S. Rich 3082:S. Rich 2807:discuss 2652:S. Rich 2577:S. Rich 2553:LY, in 2511:S. Rich 2475:S. Rich 2434:S. Rich 2402:@sirich 2381:S. Rich 2304:S. Rich 2271:S. Rich 2066:Bahooka 2025:Bahooka 1976:S. Rich 1950:Bahooka 1732:S. Rich 1708:@srich" 1684:S. Rich 1619:S. Rich 1586:WP:BLPN 1484:S. Rich 1447:S. Rich 1418:S. Rich 1378:S. Rich 1337:S. Rich 1311:S. Rich 1279:S. Rich 1230:S. Rich 1196:S. Rich 1168:S. Rich 1131:S. Rich 1066:WP:DENY 1018:WP:DENY 981:WP:NPOV 908:S. Rich 858:S. Rich 798:S. Rich 585:WP:LEAD 445:S. Rich 419:WP:NPOV 351:WP:MEAT 270:webpage 261:article 138:S. Rich 39:archive 4695:Sitush 4661:Sitush 4638:Sitush 4618:Sitush 4589:highly 4499:WP:BLP 4495:WP:SPS 3700:Sitush 3686:WP:RSN 3636:WP:SPS 3634:, not 3609:2000s. 3565:WP:SPS 3486:WP:SPS 3408:RL0919 3404:WP:RSN 3308:Here. 2997:Sitush 2941:revert 2931:says: 2929:WP:BRD 2915:Sitush 2863:Sitush 2841:Sitush 2811:Sitush 2744:Sitush 2686:WP:BRD 2379:.) – 2261:listed 2119:policy 2051:Orlady 2007:Orlady 1070:Orlady 1022:Orlady 999:WP:NOR 951:WP:NPA 937:Orlady 872:Orlady 831:Orlady 725:Orlady 631:Orlady 373:WP:TPG 369:WP:NPA 288:Orlady 200:Orlady 4651:Mayer 4491:again 4390:What 4123:Arzel 4059:Arzel 3257:? – 3194:WP:RS 3148:group 2993:WP:TE 2266:these 2117:? WP 1839:WP:OR 1307:WP:RS 1226:prior 1166:. – 856:. – 763:|ans= 753:This 713:label 136:. – 124:will 16:< 4699:talk 4681:talk 4665:talk 4642:talk 4622:talk 4597:talk 4579:talk 4564:talk 4545:talk 4510:talk 4497:and 4475:talk 4459:talk 4416:talk 4400:talk 4392:does 4382:talk 4360:talk 4342:talk 4319:talk 4284:talk 4266:talk 4252:talk 4231:talk 4217:talk 4202:talk 4187:talk 4172:talk 4158:talk 4141:talk 4127:talk 4113:talk 4096:talk 4081:talk 4063:talk 4048:talk 4007:talk 3972:talk 3964:this 3944:talk 3913:talk 3803:Per 3773:talk 3757:talk 3741:talk 3723:talk 3704:talk 3644:talk 3620:talk 3587:talk 3573:talk 3554:talk 3540:talk 3532:what 3518:talk 3499:talk 3430:talk 3412:talk 3386:talk 3364:talk 3344:talk 3323:talk 3300:talk 3263:talk 3245:talk 3226:talk 3184:talk 3165:talk 3137:talk 3117:here 3101:talk 3086:talk 3022:talk 3001:talk 2968:talk 2937:Note 2919:talk 2903:talk 2894:from 2867:talk 2861:. - 2859:this 2857:and 2855:this 2845:talk 2830:talk 2815:talk 2797:talk 2782:talk 2748:talk 2717:talk 2694:talk 2670:talk 2656:talk 2629:talk 2581:talk 2575:? – 2566:OCLC 2559:ISBN 2529:talk 2515:talk 2507:LvMI 2493:talk 2479:talk 2457:talk 2438:talk 2415:talk 2385:talk 2377:here 2362:talk 2335:talk 2308:talk 2294:talk 2275:talk 2234:Note 2219:The 2070:talk 2055:talk 2029:talk 2011:talk 1980:talk 1954:talk 1938:here 1934:here 1908:talk 1894:talk 1880:talk 1866:talk 1851:talk 1828:talk 1811:talk 1793:talk 1777:talk 1755:talk 1736:talk 1721:talk 1688:talk 1668:talk 1651:talk 1637:talk 1623:talk 1601:talk 1572:talk 1556:talk 1502:talk 1488:talk 1470:talk 1451:talk 1436:talk 1422:talk 1416:. – 1400:talk 1382:talk 1364:The 1356:talk 1341:talk 1315:talk 1309:. – 1297:talk 1283:talk 1249:talk 1234:talk 1216:talk 1200:talk 1172:talk 1154:talk 1135:talk 1088:talk 1074:talk 1055:talk 1041:talk 1026:talk 1007:talk 989:talk 959:talk 941:talk 926:talk 912:talk 876:talk 862:talk 835:talk 818:Done 802:talk 729:talk 686:talk 650:talk 635:talk 629:. -- 606:talk 598:This 587:. — 575:talk 560:talk 524:talk 508:talk 478:talk 464:talk 449:talk 427:talk 402:talk 387:talk 359:talk 340:talk 322:talk 292:talk 242:talk 228:talk 204:talk 170:talk 156:talk 142:talk 111:talk 4471:TFD 4412:TFD 4378:TFD 4338:TFD 4280:TFD 4278:. 4248:TFD 4213:TFD 4183:TFD 3691:own 3396:not 3216:is 3198:not 3153:BLP 3077:not 2547:his 2543:his 1680:not 1480:you 1127:not 761:or 4701:) 4683:) 4667:) 4644:) 4624:) 4599:) 4581:) 4566:) 4547:) 4512:) 4477:) 4461:) 4418:) 4402:) 4384:) 4362:) 4352:as 4344:) 4321:) 4286:) 4268:) 4254:) 4233:) 4219:) 4204:) 4189:) 4174:) 4160:) 4143:) 4129:) 4115:) 4098:) 4083:) 4065:) 4050:) 4042:? 3974:) 3775:) 3759:) 3743:) 3725:) 3706:) 3646:) 3638:. 3622:) 3589:) 3575:) 3556:) 3542:) 3520:) 3501:) 3414:) 3346:) 3329:) 3325:• 3302:) 3265:) 3228:) 3167:) 3139:) 3103:) 3088:) 3024:) 3003:) 2970:) 2953:is 2921:) 2905:) 2869:) 2847:) 2832:) 2817:) 2799:) 2784:) 2750:) 2719:) 2696:) 2672:) 2658:) 2631:) 2583:) 2531:) 2517:) 2495:) 2481:) 2473:– 2440:) 2387:) 2348:, 2337:) 2310:) 2277:) 2072:) 2057:) 2031:) 2013:) 1982:) 1972:}} 1966:{{ 1956:) 1910:) 1896:) 1882:) 1868:) 1830:) 1795:) 1757:) 1738:) 1690:) 1670:) 1653:) 1639:) 1625:) 1603:) 1574:) 1504:) 1490:) 1472:) 1453:) 1438:) 1424:) 1402:) 1384:) 1358:) 1343:) 1317:) 1299:) 1285:) 1251:) 1236:) 1218:) 1202:) 1174:) 1156:) 1137:) 1121:. 1090:) 1076:) 1057:) 1043:) 1028:) 1020:-- 1009:) 991:) 983:. 961:) 943:) 928:) 914:) 878:) 864:) 837:) 829:-- 804:) 779:: 767:no 731:) 652:) 637:) 608:) 577:) 562:) 526:) 510:) 480:) 466:) 451:) 443:– 429:) 421:. 408:) 404:• 361:) 353:. 342:) 324:) 294:) 244:) 230:) 206:) 172:) 158:) 144:) 113:) 4697:( 4679:( 4663:( 4640:( 4620:( 4595:( 4577:( 4562:( 4543:( 4508:( 4473:( 4457:( 4414:( 4398:( 4380:( 4372:( 4358:( 4340:( 4317:( 4282:( 4264:( 4250:( 4229:( 4215:( 4200:( 4185:( 4170:( 4156:( 4139:( 4125:( 4111:( 4094:( 4079:( 4061:( 4046:( 3994:: 3990:@ 3970:( 3884:. 3840:. 3771:( 3755:( 3739:( 3721:( 3702:( 3642:( 3618:( 3585:( 3571:( 3552:( 3538:( 3516:( 3497:( 3410:( 3342:( 3321:( 3298:( 3261:( 3224:( 3163:( 3135:( 3099:( 3084:( 3020:( 2999:( 2966:( 2917:( 2901:( 2865:( 2843:( 2828:( 2813:( 2795:( 2780:( 2746:( 2715:( 2692:( 2668:( 2654:( 2627:( 2579:( 2527:( 2513:( 2491:( 2477:( 2436:( 2383:( 2333:( 2306:( 2273:( 2225:) 2217:( 2068:( 2053:( 2027:( 2009:( 1978:( 1952:( 1906:( 1892:( 1878:( 1864:( 1826:( 1791:( 1753:( 1734:( 1686:( 1666:( 1649:( 1635:( 1621:( 1599:( 1570:( 1500:( 1486:( 1468:( 1449:( 1434:( 1420:( 1398:( 1380:( 1354:( 1339:( 1313:( 1295:( 1281:( 1271:D 1267:R 1263:B 1259:B 1247:( 1232:( 1214:( 1198:( 1170:( 1152:( 1133:( 1086:( 1072:( 1053:( 1039:( 1024:( 1005:( 987:( 957:( 939:( 924:( 910:( 894:) 890:( 874:( 860:( 833:( 800:( 727:( 648:( 633:( 604:( 573:( 558:( 522:( 506:( 476:( 462:( 447:( 425:( 400:( 385:( 357:( 338:( 320:( 290:( 240:( 226:( 202:( 168:( 154:( 140:( 109:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index