Talk:Mises Institute

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see anything the the article claiming it was a crown-grant. I think that on the US they are self-taken. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inherent in the coat of arms: A barred helm with a crown on top means a major grant of nobility from the crown. (Heraldry was the emojis of the day, and even illiterates were expected to understand them at a glance.) Rather than that silly twaddle, why not use the logo from their website? https://mises.org/sites/default/files/logo_v3.png AndroidCat (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

text: the CoA is from the Mises Family. From the Mises institute website: The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. https://mises.org/profile/ludwig-von-mises this took me 30 seconds of research Maxlysle (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , which is bullshit. The Mises family coat of arms belongs to the Mises family, not to the recently formed think tank. I can't set up the Queen Elizabeth Institute and use the royal coat of arms. Guy (help!) 00:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably true, unless your relationship with the queen is as close as Rothbard's was with Mises. It might also be easier if the queen is driven out of England by the Nazis. Kind of a weird comparison. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , the grant of arms was to the Mises family not the institute. I could be the Queen's best mate (rather than merely having been invited to a Palace garden party once), I still could not use her coat of arms on my hypothetical Queen Elizabeth Institute. Guy (help!) 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

text: It wasn't just that Mises was close to Rothbard; Lew Rockwell also got the permission of Mises's widow to set up the organization in the Mises name. Crawl of the wild (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of a moot point since I don't think American law prevents the use of heraldry which isn't  independently trademarked. Is this thread a proposal to remove the coat of arms from the article? I don't see the point in discussing this otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus coat of arms

message: , 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)
replies: text: , they are deprecated in the parent template per WP:MISSION, but it seems nobody remembered to follow up in subject-specific templates (I have now started that process). Wikipedia has had many naive ideas over time, and that was one of them. The problem is that mission statements are not NPOV - especially with think-tanks, who often describe themselves in terms even Orwell would consider a bit blatant.Guy (help!) 12:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  One could conclude the same thing about the names of many think tanks or government agencies. Should we censor those too? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  , not including PR is not "censorship", and: YES. Absolutely. We should not include mission statements. See WP:MISSION. Seriously. Go, nuke it wherever you see it. Guy (help!) 13:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I think JzG should stop massive deleting content before there is a clear consensus about this. He is the one against the consensus. In my oppion his massive deleting is not justify. But could be better that the user writes here especific suggestions of redaction instead of just doing non sense cutting citing subjective interpretations of WP Politics. He also deleted a summary of duplicated topics that I do yesterday to reduce any possible judge of promotion, I think that the constructive intention of the user should be more clear and will be more clear if we makes punctual proposals of redaction here before than in the article. --Krapulat (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a better idea. Go read the discussions at talk:Knights of Columbus, as a perfect recent exemplar of an article where fans of a subject tried to have most of the content drawn from the subject's own affiliated sites. That ended up with at least one topic ban. I'm sorry it got so bad before anyone noticed, but it has to be fixed. Wikipedia does not allow so much of any article to be drawn from the subject's own sites, and does not allow mission statements (see WP:MISSION). This is all part of core policy and has been for ever. You're welcome to bring content back paragraph by paragraph after substituting the primary source for a reliable independent secondary source, but reversion to the self-sourced version is a violation of WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 14:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  What you call "WP politics" is what everyone must follow on Wikipedia, that is not for free speech or WP:PROMOTION (WP:NOT being policy).  —PaleoNeonate – 10:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "Wikipedia ....does not allow mission statements (see WP:MISSION)",  WP:MISSION is not a policy, it's not even a guideline, it's an essay. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , an essay describing the relevance of WP:NPOV to misison statements. Guy (help!) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox parameters 

message: 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)
thread_title:   Debate on the Reliable Source Noticeboard concerning Mises 

message: 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)
replies: text: Adding to what Binksternet wrote, please see WP:SPLC. Llll5032 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPLC IS NOT NEUTRAL 

message: 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. "
--Krapulat (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheffield's essay characterizes the institute itself, not just the leading figures. Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sheffield's essay is from 2016. Llll5032 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics to the organization or to persons?