This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mises Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Mises 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
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)
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)
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)
That's a quite a coat of arms apparently claimed by the Mises Institute. I mean, I'm no expert on reading heraldry, but apparently they're claiming that it was a crown-grant, which is most impressive for an American organization formed in 1982. Was it from the King of the Moon? I realize that this kind of thing has fallen by the wayside, but this is the modern equivalent of claiming several doctorates backed by diploma mills. I don't know if Wikipedia should be giving it the time of day. AndroidCat ( talk) 06:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@ JzG:, with regard to this What is the point of having motto and mission parameters to Template:Infobox institute if we can't use them? Calgarianic(ide) ( talk) 12:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
interpretations of WP PoliticsWhat you call "WP politics" is what everyone must follow on Wikipedia, that is not for free speech or WP:PROMOTION (WP:NOT being policy). — Paleo Neonate – 10:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Following this suggestion, I am notifying all viewers of this talk page that there is currently a discussion involving Mises on the reliable sources noticeboard. Flickotown ( talk) 23:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
SPLC is not neutral 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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mises Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Mises 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
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)
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)
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)
That's a quite a coat of arms apparently claimed by the Mises Institute. I mean, I'm no expert on reading heraldry, but apparently they're claiming that it was a crown-grant, which is most impressive for an American organization formed in 1982. Was it from the King of the Moon? I realize that this kind of thing has fallen by the wayside, but this is the modern equivalent of claiming several doctorates backed by diploma mills. I don't know if Wikipedia should be giving it the time of day. AndroidCat ( talk) 06:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@ JzG:, with regard to this What is the point of having motto and mission parameters to Template:Infobox institute if we can't use them? Calgarianic(ide) ( talk) 12:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
interpretations of WP PoliticsWhat you call "WP politics" is what everyone must follow on Wikipedia, that is not for free speech or WP:PROMOTION (WP:NOT being policy). — Paleo Neonate – 10:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Following this suggestion, I am notifying all viewers of this talk page that there is currently a discussion involving Mises on the reliable sources noticeboard. Flickotown ( talk) 23:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
SPLC is not neutral 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)
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)
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)