868:, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and accordingly this statement, if it belongs in the article at all, does not belong in the lede, since no mention of it is made elsewhere. And I have to ask whether it actually belongs in the article anyway. I see no obvious reason why thebestschools.org should be considered a reliable source on 'popularity' or 'influence' as general concepts. Nor does it appear to claim to be so. Instead it gives its own criteria. Whether such criteria are valid as a measure of 'popularity' is clearly a subjective opinion, making the ranking itself subjective. And per Knowledge policy, opinions need to be described as such, and properly attributed. If this ranking is to be mentioned at all I'd suggest that it is first necessary to find evidence that it is being cited by third-party sources, and then reworded to explicitly state where the 'popularity ranking' came from.
336:
exists – we have material published by Mises.org which says "I think Z about this topic". And the reader is left to suppose that Z is the official view of LvMI. Well, to select different people who've been published by mises.org means cherry-picking various items from the primary source. With dozens and dozens of people, publishing hundreds of items, there is a huge variety to select from. Unfortunately we've had people selecting material which, shall we say, tended to portray LvMI in a certain light. The edit I made was perhaps a first step to get these portrayals in a NPOV mode. –
31:
465:
pickout what we feel is important. At the same time, a description of their views may be helpful to the reader. So here is my thought: Mises Inst. has 16 Fellows listed (and each is notable with their own WP article); this article lists them & each has a brief description; what might work is a bit more detailed description of what they have each written through Mises.org publications. (For example, Block is best known for his book
399:. Instead we should rely on the weight that reliable sources provide to the various views in articles about the LvMI. Journalism in mainstream media, SPLC reorts, and academic textbooks and articles are written by people who are trained to do this. Even though the weight they assign will represent a judgment, it will be a mainstream judgement. That is why we rely on
515:
The "sound money" pseudo-argument is also a means to wage war against modern states and constitutes at the same time the basis of expectations manipulation. John
Maynard Keynes held expectations as exogenous but Friedmanites and Misesians have endogenized these, and call them rational (or consistent)
129:
Neither "Searchlight" magazine nor the SPLC are great sources for anything approaching a contentious claim about living persons as a rule. If cites for association are needed, surely better cites should be found, and inclusion of contentious claims about any living person must meet the standards and
464:
The material which talked about the Mises people, and not the institute, has been removed. We are left, however, with the short paragraphs in which primary sourced LvMI-published material is used to say what the various scholars have written. As TFD says, we should not be going through that stuff to
316:
I think it is OR for us to select individual members and report their views as representative. We should instead use a source as a guide for appropriate weight. The SPLC for example has an article about the LvMI which could be used to outline typical views. But the actual source used is about the
936:
use for uncontroversial facts (e.g. addresses or an establishment date when other sources only have the year). Much of this article was promotional material drawn directly from the subject's website. "X promotes Y, source, page on X's website promoting Y" is never a good look. And that was a lot of
238:
themselves say that LvMI was established in order to expand upon or develop the strategy I think the best place for the info is in a footnote. Having it there supports the earlier material about the rift. Perhaps the footnote could be clarified somewhat. Something like "When discussing the Ron Paul
507:
There is a serious conceptual error in the page: The Mises
Institute's mission is described, among others, as "defense of the market economy". In reality The Mises Institute is advancing capitalism and replacing market economy. Market economy is an economy based on exchanging goods with money as a
417:
True. A shorter article will be the result. I only removed the SPLC material that said stuff about persons who had published with LvMI. The SPLC material did not address LvMI directly. At the same time, there was primary source material in the article added by some people who, I believe, found the
511:
Capitalism is wealth accumulation but market economy is economic exchange. The
Misesian framework keeps money artificially scarce (the "sound money" pseudo-argument) and is identical to Friedmanite framework. Needless to say that this difference means different concepts of individual freedom. The
449:
that the two of the proponents to include material are now topic banned from the article and one proponent is indeffed. I had held off on editing the article in accordance with the RFC result because the ArbCom on the topic was underway. This said, I do not want to rehash the RFC. The closure is
284:
reverted an edit which removed material about Mises-related people. The source did not describe the organization's views. The edit was in keeping with the "RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?" closure which said "I'd suggest to editors that the
335:
I agree with TFD. In the RfC I argued for a broader removal of the material. But I am satisfied with the RfC closure (which is why I cited it). My previous edit removed the material that said "X, who has been a scholar at LvMI, said Y." I left the mises.org sourced material. Thus a cunumumdrum
940:
Anything significant will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources, and can be included when such sources are identified, but it must not go back in form the primary and unreliable sources, because that's not how
Knowledge works. Do read the debates on the KofC page and look at the
253:
Well? ... Let me add that the footnote serves to provide the pertinent information without UNDUE emphasis. The single comment from
Horowitz about the unsavory people involved Mises.org nearly 30 years ago. It does not deserve a full sentence in a two-sentence paragraph. –
317:
neo-confederate movement and probably more relevant to that article. In comparison, one could select a number of
Democrats - George Wallace, Jim Jones. Larry McDonald and present their views in the article about the Democratic Party, but it would be misleading.
289:
on various issues and reinforce them with specific publications from Mises members. " The SPLC material only identifies the people as being associated with LvMI. It does not say that LvMI holds the views. The closure also cautioned against SYNTH. –
683:
Wish I could. The source is essentially a blog that is looking at
Sarwark's Tweets which vaguely reference Tweets from an un-verified Twitter account under the name Tom Woods. I do not think the "criticism" from the LP Chair (Sarwark) is either
486:
I agree. We should re-name the section "Senior fellows" and provide the complete list, along with brief descriptions of them sourced to LvMI. (Rothbard for example should not be mentioned.) That is an acceptable use of primary sources.
162:
is questionable. As is "Searchlight" for any claims about a person. The name of the person in the list here is not the issue, AFAICT, but some claims about the person may well be at issue, so the proper thing is to remove the source and
305:"the organization's views" — the underlying premise being that not-for-profit organizations are persons? It is hard to understand how a think-tank has views apart from the views of the scholars which comprise the think-tank. —
204:
has material which discusses the paleo-libertarian strategy of
Rothbard. But it does not directly support info related to the history of the institute. It is more focused on the Ron Paul newsletter issue. The sources are
450:
what we must live with. And the closure says we take out stuff that does not state what the organizational views are. We do not engage in synthesis to say "author X, who is associated with LvMI, holds these views." –
979:, because if their position is significant then it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources. Remember, this is a think-tank promoting a fringe ideology (fundamentalist anti-governmentalism). Per
983:, we do not place ourselves in the position of arbiters of which statements are significant and which are not, we rely on independent sources. Reliable ones, that are not listed as questionable at places like
710:
I agree, it hasn't gotten much coverage at all, but
Sarwark has gotten a lot of backlash from libertarians for his comments. Many want him removed as chair in 2018. See the comments on this video for example:
233:
I agree, not verboten. And that is why the views and strats in the early years was put into a footnote. The development of the LvMI was (perhaps) an off-shoot of the strategy. Since the sources cited do not,
861:
The lede states that " according to a popularity ranking of 2015 the Mises
Institute ranked as the 9th most influential think tank in the United States", citing a page on thebestschools.org website.
367:
No. Inrageous, rageous, or outrageous is a matter of opinion. I'd like NPOV to prevail. How do we do that? Report on only the more or most outrageous? Report on everything? –
599:" article explicitly mentions that the ideas defended by the subject of this article are opposing to it, and there is no mention to "neoliberalism" in this article.
803:
799:
785:
721:
It would probably stand to be mentioned on Sarwark's Knowledge page rather than Ludwig von Mises Institute's. I know there is a problem with notability, though.
532:
660:
Can someone explain under "criticisms" the Nicholas Sarwark controversy in further detail? The Jason Stapleton interview of Nicholas Sarwark may help.
442:
906:
901:
990:
I do encourage you to read the archives at the KofC article - that was exactly the same situation with a considerably less controversial subject.
910:
865:
544:
Even if everything you say is true (I personally have no idea whether it is or not), to make changes to the article you would need to provide
960:
For example, them, as a primary source is straightforward and definitive on what their official mission statement is, and you removed that.
270:– "explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article". 16:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
893:
869:
516:
referring their rationality or consistency to the economic model. Mises and his followers are totalitarians (or inverted totalitarians).
443:
Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute/Archive 6#RfC: RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?
358:
In other words, you'd rather than the article refrain from reporting on the more outrageous topics that LvMI has published. Zip it. —
781:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
675:
993:
All you need is independent RS and we're good. The 14,000-odd bytes of unreliably sourced and primary sourced PR is not on though.
941:
history of the article. Note how the editor most determined to self-source ended up topic banned. I hope that doesn't happen here.
771:
441:
Note, the archive bot picked up the RfC on this topic and archived the thread as we were discussing. Here is the archive link:
528:
72:
67:
59:
862:
395:
We should not read through the LvMI website and determine what is signficant because that means making a judgment, which is
846:
932:. Knowledge works from sources that meet a trifecta: reliable, independent, secondary. Self-sourcing is reserved for
467:
38:
524:
492:
408:
322:
802:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
897:
95:
873:
403:. There is a problem that these sources generally ignore the LvMI. But the solution is a shorter article.
837:
763:
508:
means, but the Misesian (and Friedmanite) dogma is based on accumulating money at the expense of exchange.
759:
224:
I don't think that discussion of the views and strategies of the founders of the institute is verboten. —
580:, whose action I consider an undue censorship. I'd like to see where the local consensus stands on this.
158:
Where it gives an opinion about a living person, the issue of WEIGHT for such an opinion where it is the
821:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
809:
734:
671:
604:
557:
762:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
697:
689:
663:
520:
488:
476:
455:
423:
404:
372:
341:
318:
295:
259:
244:
214:
47:
17:
980:
967:
889:
623:
512:
Misesian interpretation is enhancing the liberty of the few at the expense of the majority of men.
400:
887:
I have removed a lot of self-sourcing, for exactly the same reasons that we recently did this at
806:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
822:
772:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131220093841/http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html
645:
585:
172:
139:
115:
107:
722:
667:
633:
600:
577:
553:
829:
755:
693:
472:
451:
419:
418:
material to be less than favorable. What to do with that material is another question. –
368:
337:
291:
255:
240:
210:
614:
IMO there is some connection, but IMO not enough to include on a short "see also" list.
976:
788:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
267:
1006:
971:
954:
877:
851:
828:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
775:
741:
701:
649:
627:
608:
589:
561:
536:
496:
480:
459:
427:
412:
376:
362:
345:
326:
309:
299:
263:
248:
228:
218:
185:
176:
160:
only source at all given about the person in a list not on the main BLP for the person
153:
143:
119:
1001:
984:
949:
596:
573:
359:
306:
225:
182:
150:
131:
277:
RFC result on removing section on "views espoused" as justification for earlier edit
641:
581:
545:
396:
168:
135:
111:
927:
285:
best way to move forward is to identify independent, reliable sources as a basis
795:
685:
549:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
794:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
712:
995:
943:
239:
Newsletters in 200x, authors X & Y mentioned that LvMI had ....." –
209:"a discussion of the paleolibertarian period of the Mises Institute". –
106:
Using primary sources is not recommended for Knowledge articles. See
25:
857:"the 9th most influential think tank in the United States"
766:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
923:
919:
915:
281:
201:
798:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
776:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html
576:'s addition to "See also" section was reverted by
640:writes explicitly about "neoliberal Hayekianism".
96:An ANI has been filed concerning recent edits here
471:was published through Mises.org.) Thoughts? –
165:any possibly contentious claims about the person
149:What, exactly, is unreliable about the SPLC? —
784:This message was posted before February 2018.
715:It's a major controversy in the LP right now.
8:
713:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKDvAkUuztQ
754:I have just modified one external link on
661:
747:External links modified (February 2018)
595:I simply do not see the relation. The "
181:Sorry, I don't know what that means. —
866:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lead section
503:A serious conceptual error in the page
266:Also, the footnote is in keeping with
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
24:
758:. Please take a moment to review
29:
742:00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
702:23:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
1007:08:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
972:14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
955:12:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
878:19:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
562:21:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
537:20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
98:04:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
852:03:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
287:for the organization's views
200:The previous edit, reverted
1025:
815:(last update: 5 June 2024)
751:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
468:Defending the Undefendable
497:22:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
481:16:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
460:16:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
428:00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
413:23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
377:23:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
363:23:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
346:23:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
327:22:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
310:22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
300:21:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
264:16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
249:22:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
229:22:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
219:21:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
196:Footnote for history edit
650:00:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
638:How Will Capitalism End?
628:13:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
609:07:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
590:07:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
186:15:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
177:15:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
154:15:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
144:13:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
120:13:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
125:sources for BLP claims
42:of past discussions.
796:regular verification
525:Vienna Totalitarians
18:Talk:Mises Institute
890:Knights of Columbus
786:After February 2018
401:"secondary sources"
397:"original research"
937:the content here.
840:InternetArchiveBot
791:InternetArchiveBot
1005:
953:
816:
679:
666:comment added by
552:any new content.
540:
523:comment added by
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1016:
999:
947:
931:
913:
850:
841:
814:
813:
792:
739:
731:
730:
656:Nicholas Sarwark
634:Wolfgang Streeck
620:
546:reliable sources
539:
517:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1015:
1014:
1013:
904:
888:
885:
859:
844:
839:
807:
800:have permission
790:
764:this simple FaQ
756:Mises Institute
749:
735:
724:
723:
658:
616:
570:
518:
505:
279:
198:
127:
104:
102:primary sources
93:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1022:
1020:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
991:
988:
884:
881:
870:86.143.231.214
858:
855:
834:
833:
826:
779:
778:
770:Added archive
748:
745:
719:
718:
717:
716:
705:
704:
657:
654:
653:
652:
612:
611:
569:
566:
565:
564:
504:
501:
500:
499:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
351:
350:
349:
348:
330:
329:
313:
312:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
251:
197:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
130:strictures of
126:
123:
103:
100:
92:
89:
87:
83:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1021:
1008:
1003:
998:
997:
992:
989:
986:
982:
978:
975:
974:
973:
969:
965:
964:
959:
958:
957:
956:
951:
946:
945:
938:
935:
929:
925:
921:
917:
912:
908:
903:
899:
895:
891:
883:Self-sourcing
882:
880:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
856:
854:
853:
848:
843:
842:
831:
827:
824:
820:
819:
818:
811:
805:
801:
797:
793:
787:
782:
777:
773:
769:
768:
767:
765:
761:
757:
752:
746:
744:
743:
740:
738:
732:
729:
728:
714:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:WP:NOTEWORTHY
687:
682:
681:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
619:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:neoliberalism
594:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:Neoliberalism
568:Neoliberalism
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
513:
509:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
462:
461:
457:
453:
448:
444:
429:
425:
421:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
328:
324:
320:
315:
314:
311:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
288:
283:
276:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
250:
246:
242:
237:
232:
231:
230:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
203:
195:
187:
184:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
166:
161:
157:
156:
155:
152:
148:
147:
146:
145:
141:
137:
133:
124:
122:
121:
117:
113:
109:
101:
99:
97:
90:
88:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
994:
981:WP:PROFRINGE
962:
961:
942:
939:
933:
886:
860:
838:
835:
810:source check
789:
783:
780:
753:
750:
736:
726:
725:
720:
662:— Preceding
659:
637:
617:
615:
613:
571:
519:— Preceding
514:
510:
506:
466:
463:
446:
440:
286:
280:
235:
206:
199:
167:. Cheers.
164:
159:
128:
105:
94:
86:
78:
43:
37:
727:Ghoul flesh
668:Ghoul flesh
601:Saturnalia0
578:Saturnalia0
554:Safehaven86
36:This is an
847:Report bug
108:WP:PRIMARY
977:North8000
963:North8000
934:de minims
830:this tool
823:this tool
618:North8000
447:Also note
282:This edit
79:Archive 7
73:Archive 6
68:Archive 5
60:Archive 1
836:Cheers.—
676:contribs
664:unsigned
533:contribs
521:unsigned
360:goethean
307:goethean
226:goethean
183:goethean
151:goethean
907:protect
902:history
760:my edit
694:S. Rich
642:Carlotm
636:in his
582:Carlotm
473:S. Rich
452:S. Rich
420:S. Rich
369:S. Rich
338:S. Rich
292:S. Rich
268:WP:FNNR
256:S. Rich
241:S. Rich
211:S. Rich
169:Collect
136:Collect
112:Collect
39:archive
985:WP:RSP
911:delete
550:verify
236:do not
132:WP:BLP
1002:help!
950:help!
928:views
920:watch
916:links
692:. –
548:that
16:<
968:talk
924:logs
898:talk
894:edit
874:talk
864:Per
737:talk
698:talk
686:WP:V
672:talk
646:talk
624:talk
605:talk
586:talk
558:talk
529:talk
493:talk
477:talk
456:talk
424:talk
409:talk
373:talk
342:talk
323:talk
296:talk
260:talk
245:talk
215:talk
202:here
173:talk
140:talk
116:talk
996:Guy
944:Guy
804:RfC
774:to
688:or
572:My
489:TFD
445:.
405:TFD
319:TFD
207:not
91:ANI
970:)
926:|
922:|
918:|
914:|
909:|
905:|
900:|
896:|
876:)
817:.
812:}}
808:{{
733:•
700:)
678:)
674:•
648:)
626:)
607:)
588:)
560:)
535:)
531:•
495:)
479:)
458:)
426:)
411:)
375:)
344:)
325:)
298:)
262:)
247:)
217:)
175:)
142:)
134:.
118:)
110:.
64:←
1004:)
1000:(
987:.
966:(
952:)
948:(
930:)
892:(
872:(
849:)
845:(
832:.
825:.
696:(
670:(
644:(
622:(
603:(
584:(
556:(
527:(
491:(
475:(
454:(
422:(
407:(
371:(
340:(
321:(
294:(
258:(
243:(
213:(
171:(
138:(
114:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.