Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Ludwig von Mises Institute was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-03-21

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute//archive1


Contents

[edit] "Neo-confederate" is a problematic term

I think it is a bit unsettling how both sides of the LvMI/SPLC debate have picked up the term "neo-confederate" and use it as if it is a universally accepted term. There are two huge problems that I see:

1. The prefix of "neo-" in "neo-confederate" is, in my opinion, used mainly to draw paralells between those sympathetic to the cause of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and those sympathetic to German National Socialism ("Naziism"). Rightly or wrongly, the term "confederate" already carries racist connotations, and so adding the prefix "neo-" only furthers these connotations. This, in my view, is highly deceptive and dishonest.

2. I do not know of anyone who espouses the term "neo-confederate" or uses it as a self-descriptive term; I am not familiar with the majority of websites/organizations dealing with this issue, but I'm a follower of the LvMI and its publications, and I've never seen that term used. The LvMI's faculty is definitely sympathetic toward political decentralization, secession, etc. and opposed to war and expansion of federal power; therefore, its views are in line with some of the views held by some who are/were pro-CSA. However, the term "neo-Confederate" seems to have no meaning or purpose other than as a pejorative categorization used by the SPLC et al. Paul 03:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Helvetic Confederation
Helvetic Confederation
It's way misleading. I happen to live in a confederation, Europe's oldest democracy (and by the bye a rather economically successful one, relatively speaking).
Image:Stainlessbanner.png
Confederate States of America
Dramatic illustrations of semantic pitfalls aside, I could go on about how the southern Confederacy was renowned for its utter lack of fiscal responsibility, restraint or economic finess (never mind it was based on a mind-bogglingly narrow agricultural slave economy and all that). Even a casual glance at the Austrian school article shows its take on economic theory doesn't advocate anything of the kind. So use of the term neo-confederate isn't only inaccurate, it's a misleading polemic, a device which if cited at all must be carefully qualified as such (likely to the point where a critic might hesitate to even use it, the characterisation is so inept). As for David Duke, the neo-Nazi inference is even worse. The Nazis were socialists, with vast aspects of a command economy based on military spending and massive borrowing, maybe similar to Jefferson Davis' fiscal fantasies (which the southern states resisted kicking and screaming all the way to Appomattox) but hardly libertarian. There are more than enough reasonable criticisms of libertarian economics to point readers towards thought provoking critiques without dropping the whole article down to the level of a propaganda cartoon. Wyss 04:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. "Neo-confederate" is an invective. Including it here as if it constituted a "criticism" is equivalent to having a "Criticism" section on Malcolm X reading, "Some critics, such as Lester Maddox, argued that Malcolm X was a 'nigger'." - Nat Krause 04:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur that in its use by the SPLC against LVMI, the term "neo-confederate" is clearly employed with pejorative intent. If the term is to be noted in the context of the SPLC under a "Criticisms" section, the controversial nature of applying this label term itself should be noted for NPOV purposes. In sum, whatever wording is agreed upon should indicate that the SPLC has labelled LVMI "neo-confederate" but that the term and the SPLC's application of it are used with controversy. Simply saying that the SPLC calls them neo-confederate without counterbalancing it by mention of this is inherently non-neutral. Rangerdude 05:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Using one "N" word is different from using the other. One refers to a groups of people who go by a variety of other names, including Black, African American, etc. The other refers to a group which has not other name. "Neo-confederate" properly describes those in Modern America who hold a set of beliefs that include: the South was right, Lincoln was evil, there is a right to secession, the CSA had a more pefect constitution, it is acceptable for the few to live off the sweat of the many, etc, and who organize to declare those beliefs. These are beliefs more specific than the "southern heritage" umbrella that many non-"neo-confederates" fit under. If anyone knows of a more exact, or less offensive term to describe that neo-confederates then please share it. Since there is no less unpleasant term, it is the one which has to be used. As far as the use of the term applied to the LvMI being controversial, I haven't seen any sign of anyone complaining about it from the LvMI, or anywhere else. But if there is, then please add a summary of their statement. -Willmcw 06:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Willow, so you seem to admit the charge "neo-confederate" implies some kind of pining for southern "heritage" as well as the legitimacy of slavery (a few living off the sweat of many). Most of us libertarians do believe war is evil, as was Lincoln's unconstitutional actios, and do think the CSA had a better constitution (in some respects), and that there was a constitutional right to secede. But this does not imply any of the other things: that the south was "right" (I happen to believe it had a right to secede, but probably should not have done so, and in any even was just another socialist state like the union; its slavery was apalling as was its conscription of soldiers); nor that slavery is accceptable; nor even all this southern heritage nonsense. So even by your own concept of the term, it is clearly inaccurate and slanderous. It should not be applied ot the MIses Institute. The Institute is libertarian and individualist. It opposes socialism and collectrivism in all its forms. It is vile and improper to refer to it as neo-confederate. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 15:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like your personal definition of "neo-confederate," Will, and its pejorative connotations are readily evident. The above rationale is problematic because "neo-confederate" does not in fact "refer to a group which has no other name." In reality, there isn't even a consensus among people who use the term "neo-confederate" as to what it means or how it should be applied! Some of these definitions have attributes in common such as being pro-secession, but even then the definition is not universal and many people take great offense to its use and consider it a slur. As a general policy on wikipedia, the use of offensive slurs to describe something or somebody in an article is frowned upon. At the very MOST, we should accept a slur of this sort only where they are explicitly quoted to represent the opinions or views of a fully attributed organization that uses it and even then it should be kept to a minimal with full acknowledgment that the term's use is controversial. Using a term that many people find offensive and that indisputably carries a pejorative connotation without noting as much in the article introduces a POV in violation of Wikipedia policy. Rangerdude 07:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Folks who are fans of LvMI certainly have every right to find the term perjorative, but according to Wiki standards, the issue is whether or not the term has been used in reputable published material. It has. If LvMI has objected to the use of the term "on the record" or the use has been objected to in reputable published material, then that objection should be noted.Most of the rest of the arguments here oobjecting to the term are irrelevant to Wiki standards.--Cberlet 12:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
An organization that obviously takes quotes out of context (see the Rothbard quotes used in the SPLC smear of him) is hardly reputable. Any organization that clearly insinuates that a Jewish man was anti-semitic (by noting his reference to "Jewish financiers") is not a reputable organization. - Joe LaBaw
And this is a prime example of what I consider a personal attack. I stand by the article I wrote, as does SPLC. The quotes used were typical examples of rhetoric that illustrate the themes in the article I wrote, and both SPLC and I have defended them. See the memo responding to the complaint by Horowitz.[1]]--Cberlet 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, I never said it couldn't be cited under WP policy. I don't want to sound snitty but I think your response rather well provides a good example of the lack of listening and measured thought I've read on this talk page... along with a vexsome level of intractable partisanship... on both sides.
Anyway citing an invective like that is analog to using an actual quote in the George W Bush article from one of the many folks who have actually said, "George Bush is a Nazi," or "Guantanamo is the American gulag." My point here being that I'm a bit amazed the people who brought the RfC weren't able to deconstruct, neutralize or otherwise dispatch that "neo-confederates" remark and I still say much of this can be solved by placing all the criticisms in a separate section. Wyss 13:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to putting the criticsm in a seperate section if that will help. I don't see it as useful on most pages, but if it will help reolve an issue here, by all means, let's do it. But let's remember that there was an objection that the claims in the SPLC article did not have cites, and when I provided the cites, which traced back to the LvMI website, there was a complaint that the text of these cites were original research. So I would like to see the circular and self-cancelling arguments stop, and an attempt to craft a section where the criticisms of LvMI by SPLC and other groups are accurately summarized, and the rebutals that have appeared in print (or on a serious article on a real insitutional website) are also accurately summarized.--Cberlet 15:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
We don't omit a criticism of LvMI just because some editors think the criticism is ill-founded. Because the term "neo-Confederate" isn't a common one, though, it needs a bit of explanation, which will also help the readers decide for themselves whether this charge has merit. The current text of the article is inaccurate in saying that SPLC "called the Mises Institute a 'Neo-confederate organization' ... [and] also criticizes the LvMI for taking a position highly critical of Abraham Lincoln." The Lincoln issue is part of the basis for the "Neo-confederate" term, not an "also" to it.
Here's a variation of the language I mentioned earlier, offered for comment:

Several people affiliated with the Institute have commented on topics relating to the American Civil War in ways that are seen as sympathetic to the Confederacy, such as supporting a right of secession and criticizing as dictatorial some of Abraham Lincoln's wartime actions. Because the Confederacy fought, inter alia, to preserve the slave status of African-Americans, some critics, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, have criticized the Institute for its "interest in neo-Confederate themes", which SPLC considers to be a form of racism. SPLC has also criticized the Institute for its connections with the League of the South. [2], [3]

(I omitted mention of Ed Sebesta because the link currently cited after his name ([4]) doesn't mention him.)JamesMLane 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
A much better way to present the criticisms, and far more accurate and NPOV.--Cberlet 16:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This is a much better presentation of the matter. - Nat Krause 19:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
These criticisms (and other, stronger ones) should be cited in the article but beware, these Confederate comparisons are shallow and misleading.
  • One can argue that both Lincoln and the Confederacy were morally and technically in error as to their conduct during the American civil war.
  • I know this is controversial but that war was fought over states' rights, not slavery (although it was a festering symptom of the deep systemic problems plaguing the South, which led to secession). Lincoln arrived at abolitionism late in the game and although abolition was a worthy cause and used in recruitment propaganda, the south pulled out of the union because it was grossly under-represented in the US congress, whose legislation had long been eroding, through tariffs and other measures, the economic viability of the southern establishment. We can argue that the entire Confederacy was morally corrupt (way) based on its support of slavery (which in turn was grounded in rascist criteria) but the war was fought over the flawed economic model and the resulting incompatabilities between a powerful industrial north and a smaller, increasingly rigid and agrarian south. That's not my opinion, that's the documented historical record.
  • In plain terms, most of us now understand that slavery is ethically appalling, and abolitionists at the time felt the same way, but most white people, north and south, were racists. The US government and several philanthropic groups helped establish Liberia (1817-1820) for the express purpose of sending freed blacks back to Africa. These people wanted nothing to do with slavery, or the freed slaves. Lincoln (who objectively speaking did assume tyrannical powers during the war- and these were from time to time abused) supported the emigration program. Finally, the centralized, powerful, unilaterally oriented United States government we're all familiar with was born not in 1776 or 1781 but in 1863 and 4, forged by Lincoln in his forced economic re-union of north and south.
  • Any criticism of states' rights, local determination and open economic models which uses the Confederacy as a counter argument is flawed, because the Confederacy itself was doomed by its narrow economic model and entanglement with the industrial north, not by slavery or the above. Wyss 16:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Wyss, I'm surprised that you reverted the change, given that you ackowledged that the criticisms should be in the article. This isn't the place to analyze the causes of the Civil War. We're talking about why "neo-Confederate" is an issue; by contrast, few Americans get very worked up over which side someone favors in the Hundred Years War. There was a significant public perception at the time that slavery was at least one of the issues. (From "The Battle Hymn of the Republic": "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.") Today, in the era in which LvMI and SPLC exist, that perception is even stronger. The perception has considerable merit, given that, if the Confederacy had won the war, slavery would have lasted much longer than it did. The main point, though, is that the perception exists, and is the reason for the charge of "racism". The article should explain that point (in passing) without getting into a long diversion about whether the public perception gives insufficient emphasis to states' rights issue, let alone the economics of the Confederacy. JamesMLane 00:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The phrase I have trouble with is, "Because the Confederacy fought, inter alia, to preserve the slave status of African-Americans..."
Even with the inter alia (which lots of readers won't interpret as intended, plus it's Latin), this sentence could mislead readers into thinking the root conflict was over slavery (for example Battle Hymn was an abolitionist anthem btw, not an historical document etc). Anyway how about...
Because a Confederate victory would have preserved or at least substantially prolonged the slave status of African-Americans...  ?
No ambiguous fought fors or lawyerly inter alias :) Wyss 00:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
That gives the somewhat inaccurate impression that the preservation of slavery would have been just an incidental byproduct, on a level with saying that Richmond would have become a more populous city. Nevertheless, the key point is really the public perception early in the 21st century, which turns on the reference to slavery, so I can live with your change. JamesMLane 02:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
We agree, I think, that the workable wording range may be razor-thin... I don't think the sentence implies slavery was just an incidental byproduct but rather a substantial one. One should also remember it can be argued that reconstruction didn't much improve things for most African-Americans remaining in the former CSA for decades to come, slaves becoming sharecroppers and so on, but that's quite a digression. Thanks for accepting my wording. Wyss 02:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I like the way you describe the controversy. If the article mentions the term "neo-confederate" at all, it should be clear that this is the SPLC's word, not one in general use.

The article as a whole, from what I can see, has too much emphasis on the LvMI's historical views, which might give a somewhat misleading picture of the Institute. Let's keep in mind that the Austrian School's very existence came about because of the intellectual battle against the German Historical School of economics!! Paul 00:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you think the emphasis on historical views has aggravated the dispute? Wyss 00:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say it has, and historical views are not of such high relevance to the LvMI, anyway. They might be known for them, but the article shouldn't focus mainly on that aspect of the Institute and its faculty. Paul 00:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look. Wyss 00:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

After about twenty minutes on their site, I must agree. The content of this article implies LvMI's activities stem from a rather scathing historical criticism of Lincoln's federalism and while such criticism exists, that historical perspective is only a tangental outcome of their outlook and mission. I'll have a go at this. Wyss 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The article never says that the historical questions are the core of LvMI's work. I think the "context" referred to here is just that parts of the article have so far been developed more fully than others. The remedy is not to delete valid information. The remedy is that people who think there's much more to say about the Insitute and its good work should spend less time on the RfC page and more time researching and writing the article sections that are missing. From the NPOV tutorial:
An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it. (Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance.
If the desire to throw mud at other Wikipedians proves to be such a strong temptation that the RfC participants have no time for any mundane tasks like improving the article, and it seems likely that an imbalance of coverage will persist for some time, I think it would be reasonable to dispel any misleading impression. This wouldn't be by deleting material, but by adding something along the lines of, "Although the Institute's primary focus is on economics, its occasional forays into questions of history have brought it considerable attention." (I don't know if that's true, but there could be something to explain the coverage imbalance, if adding the missing material isn't an option.) JamesMLane 01:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a helpful summary. Rest assured, I wasn't thinking of deleting information, but expanding on LvMI's mission and structure so as to put the historical view in context. Wyss 01:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten

I've expanded and re-organized the article following the comments and discussion above. I think it's more informative and balanced as to LvMI's mission and activities. Further expansions, tweaks and substantive corrections are encouraged!

  • All criticisms must go in the criticism section and be supported by cites in secondary sources. LvMI's work is controversial, weighty criticism is essential to all PoVs if this article is to have encyclopedic credibility to a neutral reader.
  • Specific replies to each criticism are not necessary. Avoid tit for tat, especially in terms of word count. However, if added, counter-arguments must be supported by (or quoted through) cites of secondary sources.
  • Unrelated references to neo-confederate, Nazi, David Duke and similar invectives will be deleted on sight.
  • The three revert rule strictly applies. Given the history of this article, repetitive reverts will be interpreted as disruptive. Instead, try re-wording (even extensively) and don't be shy about discussing how to resolve specific edits here on the talk page.Wyss 04:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I intend to remove the disputed tag within twenty-four hours. Wyss 04:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good improvement, Wyss. I'll try to add my own (mostly small stuff) in the near future.Paul 04:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The four general "rules" stated above are agreeable to me & I concur with the removal of the POV tag as long as they are abided by. Rangerdude 07:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "LvMI"

I didn't mind when this abbreviation crept into the talk page, because it's convenient, but is it appropriate for the article? SPLC really is referred to as "SPLC", but I'm not sure the same is true for LvMI. Looking at some of the Google hits, I find only a handful of uses of "LVMI", and none by the Institute itself. (Most commonly, "LVMI" is a medical term, an abbreviation for "left ventricular mass index".) I think a better short form is "the Institute". JamesMLane 06:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was accepted, rash assumption maybe. Rangerdude? Wyss 13:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd say it's accepted informally. For an encyclopaedia, we should probably use "the Mises Institute" or "the Institute" when context is clear. - Nat Krause 14:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The LvMI abbreviation is featured throughout the Institute's premises, including relief carvings in the Condon lecture hall. With that said, I think that "Institute" is totally acceptable, particularly in light of possibly confusing alternate expansions of the acronym. 14:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll skive most (but not all) instances of use from the article then. Wyss 16:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cite of Cberlet's article

It's true user:Cberlet didn't post it, but I'm uncomfortable with his having edited around it. I'm cited by name (as a result of my outside-world activities) in four or five different Wikipedia articles and although I would like very much to edit those articles, I've never, ever touched them and would never think of editing an article that even linked to external content by me. This is not to say I think Cberlet has done anything wrong, but it does undermine the credibility of the criticism section (I'd rather see one that's credible, roundly cited and scholarly, with no references to un-apt invectives, even cited ones, especially ones written by people who have edited this article).

What's more, I think the SPLC criticism of LvMI is unscholarly, pandering and generally smearish. I'm ok with it remaining in the article, especially since it represents most of the criticism section but I wanted to note my two concerns about it here. Wyss 21:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Given that Cberlet has been actively editing this article, I share the concern about citing articles that he himself wrote. Even if he was not the first editor to cite links to his own material, he did indisputably cite them within his own edits and also worked with the accompanying text. This is sufficient to raise credibility problems and I would accordingly ask that Cberlet refrain from both the addition/restoration of his own material and making major direct edits to the sentences where that material is used. If he feels a problem exists with these sentences he should post the complaint on the talk page with disclosure of his own authorship or ask another editor to make those changes. This will help greatly to avoid any appearance of self-promotion. That said, I do not object to keeping the SPLC article by Cberlet so long as his authorship is also identified in the text in a style similar to how the authorship of the LVMI-affiliate responses to the SPLC are also identified. It should be presented in a way that fairly represents his position (and quoting him directly as the current version does is probably the best way to do this) but it should not be overrepresented above either other material or the LVMI rebuttals so as not to give the impression that his article is being unfairly emphasized vis-a-vis others. I also concur that many of the SPLC criticisms in general are unscholarly and extremely politicized and partisan. As such, they should be used sparingly, with due care and disclosure of their source, and only as representations of the beliefs and claims of the SPLC itself (IOW, the SPLC's material should generally be limited to the criticisms section and should not be used to state the objective facts or positions of LVMI itself - recall that such is prohibited for partisan political sources in Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Rangerdude 07:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude, may I politely and respectfully ask at this time that you begin making an effort to avoid lawyerly, stipulative and pre-emptive remarks? They don't encourage cooperative, peaceful editing and plenty of skilled editors (including Cberlet) are now watching this page. Thanks. Wyss 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
You asked for opinions on what to do with the issue of self-cites, Wyss, and I simply obliged. I do not see anything that's unduly "lawyerly," "stipulative" or "preemptive" in my statement, which simply describes in detail how I believe we should treat cases such as Cberlet. Requesting that he avoid edits involving his own off-site work in the future is perfectly reasonable, and was posed here in a polite manner. As with any comment, you're free to take it or leave it. Rangerdude 19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem for Mr. Berlet to edit this article. We should encourage people who are published outside of Wikipedia to write for us. I think Wyss should feel comfortable editing articles where he is mentioned, too. I do think a little bit of extra scrutiny is called for in such cases; the author of something worth quoting in an article has expertise on the subject, but not necessarily objectivity. The latter is true, of course, of all Wikipedia editors, though. - Nat Krause 12:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
...a little bit of extra scrutiny..., likely what I should have said to begin with. Wyss 17:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Peekaboo...--Cberlet 11:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Huh? - Nat Krause 12:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Editing Conflict. It was supposed to appear directly under the note from [User:Wyss|Wyss]] that I was "watching this page." It was supposed to be cute and funny. I often fail in that, but seldom so successfully.--Cberlet 14:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
8) Wyss 17:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was called "original research" and frowned upon by Wikipedia?

It's actually been published by a third party source, so if "handled with care" he can include it. See Wikipedia:No original research for details. Wyss 23:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line though when it is just another biased interest group?

That's what the dispute was about, IMO. Banished (so to speak) to a criticism section, I think the article can handle that cite. Truth be told, with no scholarly criticism at all in the article (for example, no quotes from any published economist offering critical remarks on the technical aspect of their work), along with the unexplained racial reference, I don't think many readers who come to the article wanting to find out what LvMI does will be unfairly influenced. Wyss 18:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is if you look at the Mises Institute site and you look at this entry you wouldn't think you were talking about the same place. Why is so much emphasis being placed on one quote by a Hans Hoppe, one quote by a Murray Rothbard, one book review by David Gordon of a book by Peter Brimelow? When if you look at the site you can see this is a very narrow view of the site and the institute as a whole. They host thousands of articles, hundreds of books, and book reviews. And many of them will contradict another, so to hold out these three quotes as some kind of "party line" is incorrect.

The section devoted to the biased view of the SPLC is larger than any section that mentions economics or economic education which is problematic given that this is the purpose of the Institute in question.

Can you add to a section on the LvMI's economic policies? That'd be helpful. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that LvMI does not have "economic policies" per say, unless you want to go through the whole Mises University audio and then summarize it on this page. Students have done so and they can be found via .pdf as notes with a quick Google search or a search of the Austrian Forum. The problem is that this is a very superficial treatment and should not be understood as the scope of learning provided by the Mises Institute. But, a preliminary discussion should include the concepts of the Austrian School as described by Fritz Machlup including methodological individualism, methodological subjectivism, marginalism, tastes and preferences, opportunity costs, time structure of consumption and production, consumer sovereignty, political individualism, and a fluid market process.

As you can see these ideas are miles and miles away from the SPLC's critique, and yet they stand close to the core of the education provided by the Mises Institute.

Generic "Austrian School" philosophies are covered in Austrian School. Malchup does not seem to have any significant connection to the LvMI. The SPLC and other criticisms are about the LvMI specifically. If there is anything specific to the LvMI that you think should be added then please do so. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


I am sorry if you don't see the point. Let me make it clear. The article as it stands is the same as if you would allow Al Franken the privilege of writing Rush Limbaugh's Wikipedia entry or vice versa.

The ideas of the austrian school, "generic" as you put it, are very relevant to LvMI and they do have a "significant connection" to LvMI. Please, everyone, take some time to understand the tenets of the Austrian school and the specific work that LvMI carries out on a daily basis before just thrusting any 'ol critic into this article. It is lazy and a slap in the face to the Wikipedia mission.

Speaking of Wikipedia, can you please follow our behavioral norms and sign and date your talk page entries by typing four tildes at the end? If you want to add something about the LvMI's particular brand of Austrianism, and have sources, go ahead. Thanks. -Willmcw 23:13, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] League of South, Myles Kantor

I tweaked the criticism section. The League of the South had no context and the only way an unfamiliar reader would know anything about it would be to click on the link and read the entire league of the south article. Added short phrase about their stated position towards Lincoln to give readers some context without having to click. (according to the LotS article, that is their position anyway).

Also, I deleted an unsourced sentence about calling SPLC "irresponsible". The para contains two quoted and sourced criticisms, which ought to be enough to balance the SPLC criticism. Also, I moved the Myles Kantor criticism so that it is after the LvMI criticism. Since it is an article about LvMI, their criticism/response to SPLC ought to go first. As far as I can tell, Myles Kantor writes articles for an online newspaper, which would qualify as a minor source. Finally, I think some description of Myles Kantor ought to be added so that readers can be informed of who he is, and from what position he is criticizing SPLC. If his criticism comes as a columnist for an online newspaper, put that in. Otherwise, readers don't know if he is another member of LvMI or what. FuelWagon 14:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Kantor and Machan are both writers who have published with LVMI, as the summary sentence that immediately preceded their names, but which you deleted, indicated. I have restored it for purposes of clarification. Please note that Wikipedia:Common_knowledge permits summaries and overview sentences when followed by either "links to more detailed articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, or...a citation to a reliable secondary source." In this case the summary sentence simply identified both Machan and Kantor as LVMI affiliates. Rangerdude 19:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude, the sentence I deleted did not indicate whether Kantor or Machan were affiliated with LVMI. It said "Affiliates of the Ludwig von Mises Institute have denounced" and it failed to specify who those affiliates were. The following sentence said "LVMI's Machan" said blah. The sentence that contained Kantor said nothing of his affiliation. There is no linguistic connection between Kantor and LVMI from that paragraph. The first sentence does not necessarily apply to the entire remaining paragraph. It could be a list of completely different critics, all related by the fact that they criticize SPLC. You can drop the accusatory tone any time. If the paragraph was clear that both were writers with LVMI, I wouldn't be asking who Kantor is. FuelWagon 20:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon - a simple review of the history of edits to that article section would've quickly revealed both Kantor's LVMI affiliation and the purposes of the introductory sentence as both have been discussed thoroughly. It is an editor's responsibility to inform himself of this editing history for the purpose of seeking clarification before deleting material outright where a misunderstanding exists. I am still of the belief that it was sufficiently explanatory in its original form, but if you feel it needed clarification your last edits to do so are fine. Furthermore, I see nothing in my previous statement that could reasonably be construed as an "accusatory tone" as it simply notes the factual circumstance of the intro sentence in response to your deletions followed by a quotation of the applicable WP guideline. Please assume good faith as WP also directs you to do. Rangerdude 21:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Your accusatory tone was "the summary sentence that immediately preceded their names, but which you deleted, indicated". No. It didn't indicate that. You and all the editors who are entrenched in this article may know that, but approaching the article from the point of view of a reader who likely will never even see this talk page, that sentence indicated nothing about Kantor. Since it is an embattled article, I didn't want to be the one to make the call as to describing him, so I placed an embedded note indicating the article isn't clear. You deleted the note and left Kantor undescribed while chastizing me on the talk page about deleting a sentence that "indicated" his affiliation, but actually did not. I assumed good faith, because I left an embedded note saying what was missing and assumed one of the editors experienced with this article would come along and fill it in, rather than me coming in as a new editor and missing some subtle association of Kantor and misrepresenting who he is. I only changed the article to say Kantor was "affiliated with LvMI" after you brow beat me with the information. FuelWagon 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be actively seeking out a fight on wikipedia, FuelWagon - an unhealthy exercise that I am not going to entertain any further. You first attempted it through personal attacks and false insinuations against me disguised as a "response" to an RfC on edits made by other editors. You next attempted to falsely impugn me with a "3RR warning" a full two reverts short of even falling under the 3 revert rule's jurisdiction. Now you seem to be seeking a fight over edits to this article in which I politely responded to and corrected a fault in one of your changes. Simply noting the fact that you deleted a sentence rather than seeking clarification is not "accusatory" - it is a simple matter of fact, and taking a rationally phrased statement of it as if it were some personal affront to you is indicative of an unnecessarily combative approach to editing. Your concern for average readers of this article is noted, however you are not an average reader but rather an established editor who accordingly has a responsibility to seek out information on a point if and when _you_ personally believe that clarification is needed. As noted, I am not here to entertain your quest for inciting disputes and will accordingly leave the matter at that. Please focus your attentions to the subject of constructive editing. Rangerdude 03:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be actively seeking out a fight on wikipedia, FuelWagon Sorry. No. You find evidence for an attack at the slightest hint of disagreement. All I said was the article needs to explain who Kantor is and I left it to the editors entrenched in an edit war to decide what wording to use because I didn't want to pick the words. You come back at me saying Kantor's affiliation was described in the sentence that I deleted. No. It wasn't. It was a simple criticism of the paragraph. The first sentence isn't linguistically required to apply to all the sentences that follow it. Therefore Kantor's affiliation is not described in the paragraph. I left it to the editors who are familiar with the topic to pick the wording. Simple criticism about the article, not about anyone who is editing it. But you responded combatively because I took out a sentence that supported your POV. Your POV is once again coming through because you took a simple criticism of the article and took it as someone deliberately weakening your POV. No, it was a simple criticism of the paragraph that said Kantor's relationship needs clarification. And despite every effort to point out it was simple criticism of the ariticle, you accuse me of "actively seeking a fight" and that I'm on a "quest for inciting disputes". Whatever. If you have become so attached to your percieved interpretation of a simple criticism that no amount of explanation will change it, then I won't waste my time trying to change the unchangable. Accuse away, if that's what floats your boat. FuelWagon 13:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
As noted, FuelWagon, I'm not here to entertain your personal quest for a fight. Your subsequent attempts to start one will accordingly be ignored. Rangerdude 18:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The criticism section was created in order to eliminate any possibility that some of the assertive and deeply critical published commentary LvMI has received won't interfere with the article's description of its activities. I do encourage FuelWagon and others to edit the criticism section with cited criticisms as they see fit. Someone like me may come along and tweak the wording or even question the relevance of a remark, but if the cite refers to LvMI, it should be allowed in the article if editors want it there. Wyss 15:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

rfc comment - (a) Claremont Institute para is currently a gossipy waste of space. It doesn't tell the reader anything useful. (b) The racist allegation seems tenuous ("have been interpreted as" sympathetic to confederacy, which SPLC thinks is racism, plus vague "links" with League of the South). Overall, unless it relates to work done by LvMI, none of this encyclopedic, IMO. Only the Rothbard comment might be worth keeping - with some context, eg as being indicative of attitudes to gender which LvMI promulgates. (If it does; I don't know.) Rd232 23:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I am allergic to pro/con or support/criticism sections on wikipedia articles, precisely because it leads to this sort of gossipy bitching. Anything actually useful in such sections can be rewritten as either being about various aspects of the article subject, or else in a historical way (eg in year W, X said Y, which is significant because Z). Rd232 23:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the Claremont Institute para is unhelpful and that the racism comment, although cited is either tenuous or gratuitous. However, other editors have insisted on its inclusion, to a point where the resulting dispute went to RfC (which is how I found this article). The criticism section was created then deliberately retained in order to handle the dispute and IMO the article is not yet stable enough to eliminate it. Wyss 00:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectually Dishonest Entry

This is one of the most intellectually dishonest entries I have ever come across in Wikipedia. Radical muslim clerics show more honesty when discussing judaism than is shown here by the critics of the von mises institute. I would suggest people actually read some of the content on the mises site before filling this entry with so-called "expert" critics who falsely label/libel and confuse.

The mission/activities section is made up of small snippets of information that does not illustrate what it is the institute does. Instead it is meant to cause controversy as the writer has taken a few quotes (out of millions of sentences on the site) out of context in order to somehow discredit the institute.

The criticism section goes against Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which plainly states "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution. An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group." The extensive use of splc's quotes is akin to the Westboro Baptist Church being used as an authority in the entry on homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.166.132 (talk • contribs) . 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The SPLC is not an extreme political website. In this instance, the references are not being used for flat assertions, but for the SPLC's opinion of the LvMI and its scholars. The quotes are not "extensive" either. Please sign your talk page entries. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job will beback changing your name so you appear not to be biased even though your signature is all over this page.00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.166.132 (talk • contribs) .

At least some of us sign our comments. ;) -Will Beback 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is the SPLC isn't just being quoted here, but they are coming onto this page to edit the article in the form of cberlet. That conduct is not very wiki as it is akin to a republican senator editing the entry of a democrat senator.Alfred101 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find no prohibition on that activity. We are concerned with the content of the edits, not the off-Wikipedia involvements of the editors. So long as the senators follw the NPOV, they may edit each others' articles. We even allow LvMI members to edit this page. -Will Beback 01:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is the point. Alfred101 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Like it or not, the SPLC is a notable organization. The criticism deserves a more articulate presentation. Readers can draw their own informed conclusions from a well written and balanced article. This doesn't reflect any POV on the part of Wikipedia or its editors. The approach simply reports the respective POVs of the parties to the conflict. Durova 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is there an RfC, when the editor posting it has never even made a comment here? -Will Beback 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the article does not reflect the reality of the subject of the page. One only has to look at the website of the subject in question and then look at the tone and content of this page to realize that something quite amiss. Biased wikipedians prevent an accurate portrayal of what exactly the institute does and prevent any constructive changes.Alfred101 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We've asked before for someone to list the policies of the LvMI, on topics such as immigration, etc, but the response at the time is that they have no such policies, beyond adherence to the Austrian School. If you are aware of any then let's add them. -Will Beback 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that is correct, they have no "official policy" on immigration etc. The problem I have with the article is the "mission/activities" section is trying to portray something that the mises institute is not by isolating a few words out of thousands and offering them as gospel. Something that you have just admitted that is not possible or available. Moreover, the criticism portion is made up of a biased opinion that is not NPOV, but is written by the person who made the judgement in the first place. I can assure you that Brittanica does not call up the Republican National Committee to write the entry for the DNC because as hard as they try not to be biased they will inevitably be biased.

I don't know why this is so hard, I am only a casual observer, but one only has to look at the mises website and realize the disconnect between that and what is portrayed here. Alfred101 01:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms are often biased. That's their nature. We maintain NPOV by showing all viewpoints, not by excluding them. -Will Beback 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Keep telling yourself that. Alfred101 01:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait to see Westboro Baptist Church "criticism" being used on Wikipedia articles on sexual relations and the Iraq war or even Aryan National Front "expertise" popping up in articles on Judaism and race relations. Will Beback your standard is impossible to execute and does not conform to Wikipedia expectations. Alfred101 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church is universally regarded as a bunch of nutcases. The SPLC, though disliked by many, is in a different league. -Will Beback 09:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I certainly agree with the folks above that the SPLC is mostly composed of non-rigorous, donation-seeking, PC warriors who harbor little or no regard for the truth, they are definitely a notable organization. There is no reason not to include their criticism of the Mises Institute. Look, I work at the Mises Institute, and I am a die-hard anarcho-capitalist. Because I recognize the scope of the Institute's activities, and the high standard of scholarship here, I am not afraid of some pro-state organization saying nasty things. Who cares? If anything, as a Mises Institute member/employee, I want the most "airtime" possible for our critics, because I think they are obviously wrong. With enemies like these, the institute looks better. Now, please do not understand my bias disclosure to mean that I think that this Wikipedia article needs to decry the SPLC for their shenanigans. Quite the contrary. We ought to include notable details about the subject matter, and trust our wiki-readers to see the truth for themselves. SPLC has long been considered notable enough for an entry on wikipedia, so we have no good reason to censor their (in my view ridiculous) criticism of the LvMI. Also, please assume good faith when discussing the actions of other editors—I have been working with Will Beback for some time here on Wikipedia, and he, like myself, is interested in writing an encyclopedia. He is not, in my experience, a POV pusher. Please be civil, lest you cause people to have good reason to talk badly of Misesians. Dick Clark 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is not being civil? The objection is not even exclusively about the SPLC. The problem is that in Wikipedia when it comes to political articles anything goes. 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

The von Mises coat of arms has been adopted by the Institue as its logo, but the details of the granitng of the arms, or the constituent parts have nothing to do with the Insitute. The Institute is not the Kingdom of England. -Will Beback 01:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the Institute is not the Kingdom of England, yet on every country page, there is a discussion regarding their own unique coat of arms, its history, etc. The institute could have chosen numerous of other logo's, yet it chose Mises' family crest for a very specific reason. Perhaps it deserves its own page, but I think it would be better to simply integrate it with the rest of the historical corpus. Tejano 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
While the Institute may be important, it is not a country. The coat of arms belongs to the man whom it was granted, Mises' ancestor. The details of the arms have no relevance to a think tank created a hundred years later in a different continent. The only relevant fact is that the Institute adopted the name of Mises and used his family's arms as their logo. -Will Beback 07:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LvMI paleolibertarian vs. libertarian

Paleolibertarianism runs strictly against their mission statement, their books and all their efforts. Check out the list of books they have published and compare it to the characteristics of "paleos" -- very different.[5] Tejano 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is vital to note that Roderick Long, who describes himself as "left-libertarian" is the editor of the Institute's flagship journal, the Journal of Libertarian Studies. While thinkers such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Thomas DiLorenzo are closely associated with the Institute, so too is "plumb-line libertarian" Walter Block. Lew Rockwell's personal positions, while no doubt influential, do not equal Institute dogma. Dick Clark 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not paleoconservative, but still right-wing or conservative. Check the cites. Category Conservative organizations in the United States restored.--Cberlet 02:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the link cited above [6] proves that they are "conservative"? That is a list of books they sell. They are about radically changing things or thinking about the world in a radically different way. How is that conservative? "Liberal" would be a better defining word. They are closer to liberalism in the classical sense. Not the perverted definition that is used today to describe democratic socialists. --Kalmia 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell's comment on the label:

The headlines blared the re-sults of an election that 0.0001 percent of Americans paid any attention to while it was going on: “Mexico Conservative Scrapes Election Win.”

Now, the use of conservative here suggests that there is some universal understanding of the term. But what could it be?

When Russian and East European politics turned against market reforms, it was said that the conservatives were coming back. So it is in China when the Communist Party affirms its control—though this case is complicated because apparently the Communists are more pro-market than the democratic reformers. In the U.S., it means something else.

So what is a conservative in Mexico? This country was host to the first communist revolution in world history (1910). Recently, it has undergone some praiseworthy market reforms. Perhaps to be a conservative, then, means to restore the old socialist luster? It’s plausible.

But no: the press was perfectly clear on what the term means in this context. Yes, the winning candidate, Felipe Calderon, favors the business class—which is fine by me. Yes, he seems to like the idea of free trade—which is also great. He is a drug warrior—which is a very bad position but consistent with the U.S. definition of conservative. But mostly, what conservative means in this context is that he is a loyal retainer of the ruling party in the United States. In other words, what the press means by Mexican conservative is more or less the same as the way the term is used in the U.S. It means loyalty to the Republican Party state.

Many conservatives of a certain bent will object that this is not the true meaning of the word, and they will cite Richard Weaver, Frank Meyer, and the Old Right. But the truth is that the use of the word “conservative” to mean what used to be called liberal is a postwar innovation of Russell Kirk’s. It has no roots deeper in American history.

If there are conservatives who believe in true liberty today, they were called liberals in earlier times. And any socialists today who call themselves liberals have simply stolen the term and converted it to mean its opposite.

The reality is that today there are ever fewer conservatives alive who believe in true liberty as the old school believed in it. They have been ideologically compromised beyond repair. They have been so seduced by the Bush administration that they have become champions of an egregious war, ghastly bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and utterly unprincipled on the question of government growth.

Granted, the corruption of conservatism dates way back—to the Reagan administration, to the Nixon administration, and even to the advent of the Cold War, when conservatives signed on to become cheerleaders of the national security state.

But it’s never been as bad as it is today. They sometimes invoke the names of genuinely radical thinkers such as F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. But their real heroes are talk-radio blabsters, television entertainers, and sexpot pundit quipsters. They have little intellectual curiosity at all.

In many ways, today’s conservatives are party men and women not unlike those we saw in totalitarian countries, people who spout the line and slay the enemy without a thought as to the principles involved. Yes, they hate the Left. But only because the Left is the “other.”

This is why they fail to see that the Left has been making a lot more sense on policy issues in recent years. It is correct on civil liberties, on issues of war and peace, and on the critical issue of religious liberty. By “correct” I mean that in these areas the Left is saying precisely what the liberals of old used to say: as much as possible, society ought to be left to manage itself without the coercive intervention of the state.

Many of us had profound hopes at the end of the Cold War that the conservative movement in this country would give up its warmongering and attachment to party politics and follow the path of pure principle. For awhile, while Clinton was office, this seemed to be happening. How well I can recall the years from 1992 to 1996, when the Republican Party was against government expansion and Clintonian foreign intervention.

But it was a brief moment. We might say that time revealed the truth. To be a conservative in this country means to hold a deep and implacable attachment to the regime insofar as it is run by the Republican Party. Note that I’m not saying that this is a corruption of the term “conservative” or a misunderstanding. This is what the word means in reality, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

I think there are intellectual reasons for this. A crude form of Hobbesianism has corrupted every conservative thinker in this country. They sincerely believe that it is not liberty that gave rise to civilization but state-generated law, without which society would crumble. So when push comes to shove, they defend the state, no matter how bloody it becomes.

Do you protest? Have I misstated your own political views? You truly love liberty and hate the state and all its works? Good. Bail out of conservatism. Call yourself a libertarian, a liberal, an anarchist, an independent, a revolutionary, a Jeffersonian radical. Or make up your own name. But please, wake up and smell the massivo espresso: when it comes to mindless party loyalty, conservatism today is as bad as communism ever was.


Any number of reputable published books refer to the von Mises Institue and the brand of libertarianism that it peddles as "right-wing." Your essay is merely a distraction. We are here to edit an encyclopedia based on WP:RS, not engage in intellectual mud wrestling in tiny arenas where obscure and fringe libertarian ideologies are debated.--Cberlet 12:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet, your obvious distaste for "obscure and fringe libertarian ideologies" makes me wonder why you would then edit an article about the LvMI. The LvMI is an educational institution whose fellows and faculty include "left" and "right" thinkers. Now, those terms aren't even really descriptive as you well know (see Right-wing politics), and are used more as pejoratives at present than anything else. If you think it is encyclopedic to label a group with a particular label whose application is contentious, you should be intellectually honest and admit that the label is disputed, which it clearly is. There are plenty of reliable sources that would label the LvMI and similar organizations as being neither left nor right, but I'm sure you would dismiss them as "intellectual mud wrestling." Mr. Berlet, I would like to assume good faith here, and will certainly grasp at any hope of that possibility, but from where I'm sitting it is pretty difficult to see how some of your arguments/additions could be in good faith. Remember WP:NPOV please. DickClarkMises 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the "right-wing" insertion and the sources that you added to the criticism section, where I believe such disputed (and certainly contentious) information is most appropriate. DickClarkMises 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Are we equating being "right wing" with being "conservative"? The Rockwell essay only mentions the latter term. -Will Beback 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Will, in the Rockwell essay (the one published in the American Conservative) it seems to me that "right-wing" and "conservative" are assumed to, in modern parlance, describe the same thing. Now, the word "wing" isn't appended to descriptions of "left" and "right," and you are right that the term "conservative is used exclusively to describe one side. The title, though, is "What is Left? What is Right?" and the "Left" is described as being the "Other" as it relates to the conservatives, so I don't think I'm really reaching here to say that Rockwell's essay is clearly referring to the "left" and "right" at least implicitly, and I would really say explicitly. DickClarkMises 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd note that "What is Left? What is Right?" isn't Rockwell's title, but rather the title for a series of essays by prominent people who are generally considered to be conservative/right-wing/libertarian. His individual essay doens't seem to spend much time on left right politics, but rather on the illegitimacy of the term "conservative". Overall, it sounds like this is part of a bigger issue of whether libertarians are properly considered right-wing/conservative. Our own article Libertarianism wrestles with the issue, but there doesn't appear to be a clear answer. -Will Beback 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I hadn't realized that about the title. In any event, I would say that it would be unencyclopedic for the article to say, in the encylopedic voice, that LvMI (or libertarianism in general) is either "right wing" or "not right wing." Obviously, there is contention with regards to that point. Even Libertarians disagree about this, as you can see in Walter Block's paper "Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right," from the Mises.org working papers archive. See also Anthony Gregory on "Libertarian Purity" on LewRockwell.com. To reiterate, I think it would be useful to note that different people peg the Institute on the political/ideological spectrum differently. There should be, however, no pronouncement, especially in the introductory sentence, about which is "correct." DickClarkMises 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Is Jean Hardisty actually critizing the LVMI? That she calls the institute "right-wing" seems to be understandable since she herself is a "left-wing" activist. Whatever she writes should not be be used in the intro of this article however. Ulrike Heider is an anarchist of the socialist kind, another none-neutral observer whose observations cannot be used in the intro of this article. Intangible 18:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And here I thought all libertarians were conservatives, like Loretta Nall. ;) -Will Beback 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What part of this title is obscure?

  • Heider, Ulrike. (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green. Translated by Danny Lewis and Ulrike Bode. San Francisco: City Lights Books. Original edition in German, 1992.

This title seem clear. Her argument is that there are various forms of anarchism, including what she calls right-wing or "economic" libertarianism. The Institute has every right to insist it is neithe4r left or right--and critics have every right to call that claim baloney.--Cberlet 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the word "obscure" was yours, which I used not in reference to the cited sources but simply as an illustration about your rhetoric. I think the sources should stay if they indeed contain relevant material. They should just be used as sources to illustrate the controversy, though, and not as a definitive pronouncement that trumps all other positions. As you can see from the article, the sources you added are still present, and in the footnotes to direct readers in further research on this topic. DickClarkMises 00:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You, of course, are unbiased? LOL! Spare me! Nice try!--Cberlet 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Berlet, I don't think anyone participating in the current talk page discussion (except perhaps Will Beback) has any basis to claim that he or she is "unbiased" with regards to this article's subject matter. I wear my biases on my wiki-sleeve, and I do my best to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, expecting reproof from other editors if I stray beyond them. As I said above, I think your sources should remain in the article. I just think that it is a violation of WP:NPOV to "decide" a controversial issue in the first sentence of the article. Is the issue worth discussing in this article? Probably so. DickClarkMises 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAC

I reviewed this article on the following criteria.

  1. Well-written: Fail
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Neutral
  7. Images: Pass

Unfortunately, this article does not pass GAC. Here are a few remarks on the article, written as I read through it. In the Mission and Activities section, the external links should be references instead. Same thing in the Publications section, though it also has the additional problem of way too many redlinks. Either write those articles or de-wikilink them. Student Outreach Programs is a section of nothing but one sentence paragraphs. Ugh. Academic Rewards needs to have the redlinks de-linked. The Faculty and Administation section should be cut outright- not only is a big list of people no good, but the list itself isn't important enough for inclusion. The references are good, but they need formatting, especially in regard to dates. --PresN 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the honest review of the article. I've removed most of the redlinks (especially those that seemed particularly spurious), and I've broken up the student outreach section with subsection headers and merged the technological adoption section into it. I disagree about the usefulness of the list of associated individuals since this type of information appears to be conventional at articles about many organizations, including Cato Institute, but I have tried to reformat the list for aesthetics. If the list of notable people grew outrageously, I would think an "Individuals associated with the ????? Institute" article might be in order. I tried to standardize ref tag usage and converted all the in-line citations I could find to ref tags instead. DickClarkMises 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/d/Talk%7ELudwig_von_Mises_Institute_6bbe.html"