Jump to content

Talk:Mises Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMises Institute was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

SPLC

[edit]

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

Is there anyone claiming the SPLC is biased other than those the SPLC has pointed out the shortcomings of? In other words: are you claiming that the SPLC has a realistic or unrealistic lack of support for the Mises Institute? (Compare "NASA is not a neutral source, it is an ideological adversary of flat earthers.")198.135.124.107 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I removed the retort from Lew. There's no source given to illustrate why the retort was notable (it's just his personal writings), and it's just an appeal to emotion and audacity instead of anything actually answering the SPLC reports claims. It doesn't make sense to give the majority of the paragraph to that, unless we're going to expound on why the SPLC labeled them that way in the first place.198.135.124.107 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@North8000: What do you mean by "participant"? They are an independent source which reported on the subject; reporting is not the same as participation. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "participant" I meant that they are a political organization giving their opinion or talking points. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC is a third party, independent organization with a strong track record of impartial reliability. It's given 1.2 lines of the paragraph, with "Intelligence Report" in scarequotes, and its main argument is summarized in a few words. Lew Rockwell, the primary source with an obvious lack of impartiality, writing in a personal tract, is given 4 lines in which he makes arguments from incredulity and appeals to emotion.
That is far from a balanced PoV. That is a clear concession to the puffery of the article's topic.
There are several other places ("despite the historical Mises seems have sympathized to some conservative or right-wing cultural views") where the institute's claims are not presented as their claims, but as the encyclopedia's PoV.
It is fair for the wiki to record the article topic's response to criticisms. It is not fair for the wiki to, as it has done here, presume that the article topic is automatically in the right and present the article as such. The article should be from the consensus point of view of independent parties, as we do everywhere else, not the point of view of a single organization. As it is now, the article reads as a barely concerned self-written piece.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please note the "opinion" part: that's only the personal opinion of columnist Thiessen. —PaleoNeonate – 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC is widely cited off-wiki as an authority. Its biases are open and known. We always attribute its views, but there's no reason to exclude them as they are the single most cited source for this kind of analysis. Guy (help!) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am no fan of the SPLC (they should 'never be used as a source for whether an organization is a hate group or and individual is part of a hate group; they have been caught lying about that far too many times) but they are otherwise widely recognized by reliable sources as an authority, and there is zero reason to remove what they say in this case as long as it is attributed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, No, they have not been caught "lying". They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally. But reliable independent secondary sources routinely quote them, and thus so do we, but only with attribution. A review of the history of the individuals involved does make it rather obvious why SPLC listed them. Guy (help!) 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are unreliable on whether a hate group exists or on who is a member of a hate group. In other areas they are still widely cited by reliable sources and can be used with attribution. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Southern Poverty Law Center, where the strong consensus was that the SPLC is no longer reliable as the arbiter of what is and isn't a hate group.
Re: "They have been wrong, and corrected themselves, occasionally", please show your evidence that the SPLC ever retracted their false claim that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists. They have never issued a correction or in any way admitted that they were wrong, despite multiple print and TV news sources asking them about the claim.
See this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:[1]
Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.
One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed.
The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong.
Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, the SPLC silently changed the claim to say that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll" to support that claim.
The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year[2], ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that falsely claims that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level
When you make a claim without a shred of evidence[3] other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, and then change the claim to another false claim, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on the Reliable Source Noticeboard concerning Mises

[edit]

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

SPLC IS NOT NEUTRAL

[edit]

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

SPLC is an accepted source for facts such as this. Sources are not required to be neutral. See WP:BIASED.
Your "you can find a denounce" statement appears to be a violation of WP:No legal threats. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what Binksternet wrote, please see WP:SPLC. Llll5032 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critics to the organization or to persons?

[edit]

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

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

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

Sheffield's essay characterizes the institute itself, not just the leading figures. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's check it. Anyway that article is from 2008, let's work just on what it say. But, Trump presidential campaign was from 2016, and there is not an institutional support/communicate of it. That could be inmediatly erased.--Krapulat (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sheffield's essay is from 2016. Llll5032 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relevance of some material

[edit]

The Current Activities section has a long paragraph on the German Mises Institute, but how is that relevant to the subject one in Alabama? Similarly, the last sentence in the History section mentions that there were "about 30" institutes with the same name, but there is no information about the connection, affiliation or other form of association with the American-based one. The article Ludwig von Mises: Inspiring Think Tanks Across The Globe appears to imply that there is no direct connection. Perhaps that paragraph and sentence ought to be placed in a separate "Similarly named organizations" section.

The two paragraphs that mention neo-Confederate positions or themes, only identify Rockwell, Rothbard and Hoppe by name, otherwise using the vague "Figures at the Mises Institute". The Hague, Beirich and Sebesta book Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction does give the names: Clyde N. Wilson (present at the only conference mentioning secession in its title and at a second conference on the costs of war), Thomas Fleming (political writer), and Sam Francis (writer) (according to the book, Fleming and Francis spoke at the second conference). A fourth person, Donald Livingston is also identified as "connected" to the institute. Wilson does have an author page at mises.org, but only four articles: two from 1995 and two from 1999 (republished in 2009). Fleming does not seem to have a page at mises.org, but he did present "Did the South Have to Fight?" at the 1994 Costs of War conference. Francis does have an author page (he died in 2005), with the single item being a recording of his presentation at that conference, "Classical Republicanism and the Right to Bear Arms". Livingston also does not seem to have a page in the current mises.org. The point is that these "figures" were not directly associated with the Mises Institute, they just spoke or presented papers at one or two conferences some thirty years ago. It would be more relevant if current material from Rockwell or Thomas DiLorenzo (current Institute president) were quoted or shown to have neo-Confederate tendencies. JmA (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mises_Institute&oldid=1258240039"