Talk:Mises Institute/Archive 1

message: This criticism: "Critics also see a thread of sexism in the work of Rothbard, who argued that meddling Yankee women "imposed" a woman's right to vote on the rest of society" takes the Rothbard quote completely out of context.  Anyone familiar with Rothbard's decentralist beliefs could tell you that by saying "...before a constitutional amendment imposed it on the rest of the country (source: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_1.pdf)," he was refering to the federal government imposing something on the state governments and was not making a value judgement regarding female suffrage itself.
Also, just because the SPLC claims something does not mean the claim merits a place in an encyclopedia.  For example, this claim: "The Southern Poverty Law Center makes claims of other bigotry in the article, noting that Rothbard claimed it was primarily "Jewish women, after raising funds from 'top Jewish financiers,' [who] agitated for child labor laws," and that the "dominant tradition" of these women activsts was lesbianism," does not belong in an encyclopedia because the anti-semite bigotry charge is obviously false as Murray Rothbard was Jewish.  At the very least, that quote must be accompanied by a disclaimer noting that Rothbard was Jewish. - Joe LaBaw
:After reading the primary source - the uncited Rothbard essay (PDF) - I deleted the smear.  Rothbard is not blaming stuff on "meddling women," he is expositing on the 19th century pietist/progressive movement in a historical article entitled "Origins Of The Welfare State In America." He non-judgementally and factually describes women involved in the authoritarian movements against alcohol, prostitution, child labor, and so on. Hogeye 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that the criticism never occured? Or that the criticism is, in your opinion, not properly founded? If it is the latter, then that is not a good reason for removing it. If it is wrong then there is probably a Rothbard defender who has rebutted it. Let's find that rebuttal and add it. -Will Beback 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murray Rothbard 

message: I have removed a massive rewording of the "controversies" section by User:Cberlet for several reasons and request him, or any other editor favoring these changes, to propose them here first and develop a more neutral, balanced, and appropriate manner of addressing them. As it stands there are several problems with the additions that were made by this user:
1. Anonymous critics - there were multiple references to unnamed "critics" of LVMI in the plural, and attribution of specific allegations to these "critics" despite their anonymity. Such anonymity is a type of "weasil word" and per Wikipedia policies and guidelines it is discouraged. It is also a violation of WP:NPOV as the anonymous "critics" are all used to attack LVMI with no counterbalance. In reality all of the material added seems to come from but one critic, which is already mentioned in the article and which is a highly controversial and politicized source in its own right - the Southern Poverty Law Center. As has been thoroughly noted and discussed above, it is appropriate to include references to the SPLC's allegations against LVMI, however (1) this should not dominate the bulk of the article, (2) this should be done in a balanced manner permitting LVMI rebuttals of the allegations, and (3) the general use of the SPLC as a source for factual information should be treated with extreme caution as is required of partisan political sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources
2. Original research - the additions contain original research including lengthy hand selected excerpts of Murray Rothbard quotes among other things, all seemingly chosen to bolster the allegations of the aforementioned anonymous "critics" (who are in fact one single highly partisan critic, the SPLC). This particular research constitutes the use of primary documents to form an "original argument purporting to refute or support another idea," the idea being the SPLC's allegations. It is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy under WP:NOR.
3. Off topic material - To bolster the SPLC claims about Peter Brimelow's book that were added as "unnamed critics" the editor drew in unrelated and off topic attacks on Brimelow by National Review and a newspaper. If anywhere, these belong on an article pertaining to Brimelow. They are off topic to the LVMI though because they do not pertain directly to LVMI - only to a book that one of its publications reviewed favorably.
4. Formatting - the "controversies" section was reformatted in a non-neutral way by grouping a neutral section on "paleoconservative themes" at LVMI into the "controversies" section. This again violates WP:NPOV as it automatically characterizes/mischaracterizes those paleoconservative themes as if they were somehow inherently controversial and portrays them in a negative light.
Given these problems, I removed most of the materials that were added by Cberlet on this subject and restored a more neutral formatting. Upon consideration of the above and review of the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he or any other user is invited to propose the addition of materials here on the talk page, albeit in a wording that complies with Wikipedia's policies and NPOV mandate with an aim to adding them if and when a neutral version emerges that can obtain reasonable consensus among other editors, as Wikipedia policy also mandates. I am hopeful this will help to resolve some of the difficulties and look forward to any contributions along these ends. Restoration the problematic edits in disregard for the aforementioned policies, however, will be met with immediate reversion. Thanks - Rangerdude 18:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. This is absurd.--Cberlet 19:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet - there's no need for hostility or rudeness. Wikipedia operates on a principle of consensus and your edits should conform to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Many of yours did not as I have detailed above. Due to these problems I have politely asked you to post your desired additions and any pertinent revisions of them here on the talk page so that they may be worked on and a solution reached in compliance with WP:NPOV and all related source use guidelines. Simply throwing a fit and refusing to reconcile standing problems with the aforementioned edits despite explicit requests to do so is not in the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia, so I strongly advise that you approach this in a more cooperative manner than has been exhibited to date. Should you do so your contributions and collaboration will be much appreciated. Thanks Rangerdude 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Look, you can't complain about the amount of attention paid to the criticism by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and argue that it is not properly cited, and then delete the text I write that adds the actual cites, that are accurate and trace back to material posted on the LvMI website.  This is just censorship.--Cberlet 20:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet - please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and do so as the official Wikipedia guidelines require of you. Making allegations of censorship is uncalled for when standing NPOV and policy objections exist to a major addition you made, and when you have been repeatedly and politely invited to propose, discuss, and revise that addition on the talk page for the purpose of bringing it into conformity with encyclopedia standards. I have been perfectly polite and reasonable toward you, yet have received nothing but hostility in return. Wikipedia operates on consensus. I reverted your edits again as the minor change you made to them consisted of little more than adding a meaningless header while reposting the remainder - with all of its aforementioned problems - in near verbatim form. That is why I have asked you to propose the section here for the purpose of making a collaborative revision. I am patient enough to permit you another opportunity to do this, but in light of the hostility you have displayed despite these multiple attempts, I am prepared to pursue dispute resolution against you in short order if the hostility persists. Thanks. Rangerdude 20:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have rewritten the text so there are no anonymous critics.  I have added cites. It does not matter if you think SPLC is partisan, since it is the major critic of LvMI. There is not original research, only expanded cites to LvMI material and a few sentences that provide additional published cites that back up that criticism. --Cberlet 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet - simply changing all the anonymous "critics" to read "SPLC" is not a rewrite. There are still multiple outstanding neutrality, sourcing, and formatting problems with your edits in general. As I have requested many times previously, please propose your desired additions here and I will be happy to detail what I still find objectionable as well as propose collaborative revisions of it in a manner that is more likely to reach consensus among the half dozen or so editors who are actively involved in developing this article at the very moment. Thanks Rangerdude 20:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: To engage in massive deletions that sanitize criticism, and repeated reversions; and then to feign courtesy, while at the same time threatenting sanctions, is, franky my dear, not worth a damn...to paraphrase a famous movie line. (puns intended, but not offense) :-) Please pursue dispute resolution if you like, this page is a transparent record of your actions.--Cberlet 21:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet - I've tried to be courteous towards you as the subject you are editing on involves multiple participants and extends far beyond your own contributions. My aim in this section is to reach a NPOV wording that is agreeable to both sides of the conflict - as in both those who favor including the SPLC and those who object to its inclusion. You appear to have strong and highly partisan political beliefs in one of these directions, yet you make few allowances for the fact that others here also differ with those beliefs as is their right. You also seem not to grasp the fact that Wikipedia is inherently collaborative, making bad faith attacks and bad faith assumptions about other editors who simply attempt to reign in your excesses with a mind towards following Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I've been perfectly polite with you and more than sufficiently patient on this matter, intervening only to stop your uncollaborative edits and respond to your unduly hostile attitude while openly inviting and encouraging you to work towards a more productive end. That having failed, I suppose seeking outside participation is the next recourse. Rangerdude 21:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop, LOL. You are so humorous. Great parody. What fun. I have added back one criticism.  It is from a published source, the SPLC magazine.  It is presented with full cites and full attribution.  It is accurate.  It is placed in the subsection you agree is where criticism should go (I disagree, but you arbitrarily revert any attempt to to seriously edit the article.  So let's start by discussing this addition, not your deletions of large blocks of text. It so much more constructive and collective, don't you agree? :-)  --Cberlet 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that it is fairly obvious that user:Cberlet has a chip on his shoulder with regards to the Mises Institute. Chip Berlet is a self-avowed big shot when it comes to "sniffing out" supposed right-wing hate groups, and as far as I can tell is a Morris Dees wanna-be, something that hardly qualifies him to add NPOV information about the Mises Institute, an organization which is often (mistakenly) referred to as "right-wing." I think it is pretty clear that Cberlet is attempting to carry on a one-man war against  the Mises Institute. Unless he can moderate his behavior and at least attempt to write NPOV (as I do despite being an unabashed Misesian) I think that his edits should remain suspect. Mr. Berlet: Is your stance so shaky that it cannot withstand rational analysis by the Wikipedia community? Wikipedia is not a project under your control, and you have no special authority to demand that certain content be included. DickClarkMises 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very amusing.  Fans of LvMI claiming they are not partisan.  My God!  I had no idea there was gambling in this establishment. (Your winnings sir). Round up the usual suspects!--Cberlet 00:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you find what I wrote amusing. And, of course, to clarify, I said that I "attempt" to write NPOV, and I trust that others who find my syntax or choice of inclusion particularly partisan will exercise their judgement in either deleting it or rewording it. BTW, great quote! DickClarkMises 03:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: User:Cberlet is again reminded: No personal attacks on other editors. If you cannot conduct yourself in a mature and responsible fashion when addressing other editors the perception among other editors of your contributions to this article will diminish. You do not own wikipedia, Cberlet, and it is not a forum for you to promote left wing political viewpoints or berate other editors who do not share them. If you cannot control your political biases in accordance with Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV then you should avoid editing articles where they are prone to exhibit themselves strongly. Please try and keep it civil. Rangerdude 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Rangerdude, you already filed a complaint, so the paragraph above is somewhat self-serving--what we call in journalism a "cover your ass memo." But on the remote possibility that you are actually serious about actually editing in good faith, I propose that we both stop editing this page for 48 hours. Agreed?--Cberlet 01:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your profanity and general disregard for any serious attempt to better this article are duly noted and will be logged accordingly. Had you behaved in a genuine and professional manner earlier this evening when I first extended a polite and good faith invitation to you to propose, discuss, and resolve issues about your desired additions here on the talk page, I likely would have considered what you propose. Given however that you have exhibited nothing but bad faith laced with personal attacks, insinuations about other editors, and general vitriol, I see little to be gained in binding myself to an agreement with a party who I no longer trust to fulfill it. Rangerdude 02:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Predictable response.--Cberlet 02:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research, unnamed critics, and partisan sources

message: Saw the user RFC that pointed back to some edits on this article. Thought I'd drop a comment.
The SPLC says the Ludwig von Mises Institute is NeoConfederate. That's a one-word point of view.
The countering point of view is not to have several quotes from sources attacking the SPLC, but to have some sources actually saying something about the Ludwig von Mises Institute that it isn't NeoConfederate. The premise of NPOV has been knocked out of kilter in this article. There is almost more content in the article attacking the SPLC then there is about the Ludwig von Mises Institute itself. FuelWagon 03:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To which I can only add, all criticism should go in a separate criticisms section, where this glaring lack of balance and NPoV will show itself plainly. If there isn't enough room in that section, a separate article (Criticims of LvMI) should be started and backlinked. Although good faith and sincerity may (and should) be assumed on both sides of the RfC, it will hopefully help get this article into a form whereby a literate reader capable of independent thought can easily learn what the LvMI is, then decide for herself if and how far she wants or even needs to look into the criticisms. Wyss 03:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon's view of the controversy appears to be extremely one-sided, as it completely neglects multiple attempts by Willmcw and Cberlet to add several paragraphs of material favorable to the SPLC's POV. As this same editor has accused me of having a "conflict of interest" for simply expressing a viewpoint of the LVMI that isn't consumed with bashing them and as he has dishonestly implied that I have professional connections with LVMI, to which I am affiliated in no way, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality of his take on this matter. Rangerdude 19:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment from FuelWagon